ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

St Helena

Bob Russell: What progress his Department has made on the proposals for an airport on St Helena.

Andrew Mitchell: A contract has now been signed for the design, construction and operation of the new airport in St Helena. We expect it to open towards the end of 2015, in time for the 200th anniversary of Napoleon’s exile to the island.

Bob Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), whose visit to the island helped to pave the way. Does the Secretary of State agree that the islanders will rejoice at this decision by the coalition Government, which contrasts with the failure of the last Labour Government who, at the last moment, cancelled the contract?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is the right decision. It underlines our commitment to the overseas territories—they are British. He is also right to tease the Opposition about the fact that they dilly-dallied over this decision for nearly 13 years.

Meg Munn: I welcome the decision to go ahead with the airport, which I argued for long and hard, as the Secretary of State is aware. What does the decision to go ahead with the airport, which will ensure that the people of St Helena can stand on their own two feet, mean for the ship and for the continuing contact that is needed with the island? Will that be able to continue until 2015 and will extra repairs be needed?

Andrew Mitchell: I acknowledge that the hon. Lady played a strenuous and forceful part in the decision today. She argued strongly for the airport when she was in government. The ship will be able to continue until the airport is largely able to take over its necessary role. She is right to underline the importance of this decision in getting the island off aid and off the British taxpayers’ books, and looking after itself.

Moldova

Alun Michael: What assessment he has made of the development needs of the Republic of Moldova.

Stephen O'Brien: The Department for International Development’s bilateral programme in Moldova came to a planned end in March 2011. Moldova has made progress in reducing poverty since it gained independence in 1991. It benefits from significant support from the international community. DFID continues to monitor development progress in Moldova through UK representation on the European neighbourhood programme management committee.

Alun Michael: On a visit to Moldova a while ago, we had the opportunity to go to Transnistria and to see the courage of the women working with non-governmental organisations to combat the scourge of people trafficking, which has implications for us and for the whole of Europe. What can the Minister tell us about the approach of the British Government, and will he do more to help those non-governmental organisations?

Stephen O'Brien: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s continued interest and support through the all-party parliamentary group for Moldova. Although there are now formal talks to seek to resolve the protracted Transnistrian conflict, he is right to draw the House’s attention to the continuing concern about trafficked women. He will know that across Government there is a series of initiatives focusing not only on identifying and supporting such women, but on stopping the sources of those who peddle this heinous practice.

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister commend the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Moldova, both on a party-to-party basis and in parliamentary strengthening, particularly in the run-up to the presidential election on 16 December? Is not good governance the fastest way to tackle poverty?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right to demonstrate, through the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Moldova, how important good governance is in alleviating poverty and in creating the conditions that all countries need to have the greatest possible opportunity for wealth creation and security. Of course, we all look forward to the Moldovan Parliament being able to elect a President soon, which will allow the Parliament to focus on the reform agenda that is necessary to bring Moldova closer to the EU. I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the WFD.

Global Health Fund

Julie Hilling: What recent assessment he has made of the work of the global fund on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in developing countries.

Andrew Mitchell: The multilateral aid review assessed the global fund as providing very good value for money,
	but also concluded that it could do more to maximise its potential and impact in developing countries. We are working closely with it to ensure that that happens.

Julie Hilling: In view of the current concern about the global fund, will the Secretary of State clarify the UK’s current and future financial commitment to the organisation?

Andrew Mitchell: We have made it clear that we are willing, subject to the improvements that we have set out, to spend up to £1 billion by 2015. We are currently spending about £128 million a year on achieving very specific results under the global fund, and I am considering whether additional funding would be warranted. I shall make that decision on the basis of value for money for the British taxpayer.

Oliver Heald: Many of the 2,000 a day who die of malaria are children. Will the Secretary of State and his Department take a particular interest and show particular determination in tackling childhood mortality, particularly in developing countries? Will he extend that to rotavirus and the other conditions that kill so many children?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a scandal that 25,000 children will die today, needlessly, of diseases that we have the power to prevent. Tackling child mortality is absolutely at the heart of the policies being pursued by the Government.

Gregory Campbell: Will the global fund actively target the countries where the HIV problem is prevalent and worsening?

Andrew Mitchell: My answer is yes. We will be working in the most difficult countries. The aim of the review currently being undertaken under the chairmanship of an excellent British official, Simon Bland of the global fund, is to ensure that over the next four years we save 10 million lives and prevent something like 180 million new AIDS, malaria and TB infections.

Andrew George: Given that more than two thirds of TB and malaria programmes and more than half of all antiretroviral drugs are delivered through the global fund, what does the Secretary of State say about the crisis in the talks on that programme and its cancellation until 2014? What interim measures can be put in place?

Andrew Mitchell: It is true that the 11th round has been converted into a new funding approach, but we will sign grants between now and 2013 of something like $10 billion, so long as we can ensure that our priorities of securing lower prices and good value for money, focusing on the poorest and most vulnerable and considering the longer-term sustainability of programmes are met.

Tony Cunningham: Given that the global fund contributes half of spending on HIV/AIDS, 80% of spending on malaria and 75% of spending on TB, what steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that all international donors play their part? Does he see any possibility that the global fund will start distributing resources before 2014?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right to focus on the importance of getting others to meet the commitments that Britain is meeting. I can tell him that I spend a lot of my time ensuring that that happens. We will disburse something like $10 billion before 2014 and, as I have said, we are looking to secure funding after that date so that these programmes continue and are sustainable.

Tax Evasion

Diana Johnson: What steps his Department is taking to support developing countries to deal with tax evasion.

Stephen O'Brien: The Department for International Development and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs support developing country tax authorities in a range of reform and capacity-building projects to help them to collect the tax that they are owed. We particularly wish to promote developing countries’ participation in international exchange of tax information, which is a powerful weapon against tax evasion.

Diana Johnson: Developing countries lose more money through tax dodgers than they receive in aid. Will the Minister explain exactly what was said at the G20 summit to get the issue moved up the agenda?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say it is vital that we address uncollected tax, particularly in certain countries that have been identified. We are encouraging international partners to join in that, and our own Treasury has been very much in the lead. The G20 has agreed to the multilateral convention on mutual assistance in tax matters, and that is what it is now focusing on in trying to get an exchange of tax information, which will help us to support countries in collecting the tax that they are owed.

Bangladesh

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent assessment he has made of the priorities for development in Bangladesh.

Andrew Mitchell: British development in Bangladesh promotes resilience to national disasters, gets girls into school, tackles maternal mortality and helps the Government to raise their own revenue through support for fair and transparent taxation. I plan to visit Bangladesh shortly to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is well spent.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Having seen some of that work that the Secretary of State’s Department is doing in Bangladesh, may I first congratulate him on it? More specifically, what help does he think his Department could provide, perhaps alongside other Departments, to ease the political logjam that seems to bedevil Bangladeshi society from top to bottom?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has seen for himself why the issue he raises is so important. A key part of our work is helping ordinary people to hold their political leaders to account, which we do through strengthening accountability and the Government’s ability to raise
	taxes, and through strengthening local media. I have recently given a significant accountability grant to the BBC World Service Trust to do just that.

Russell Brown: Climate change is having a serious impact on food security and production in Bangladesh—the production of rice and wheat is forecast to fall by around a third by 2050. What additional resources or funding will be made available to help some of the poorest in the world, given the effect of climate change on their food production?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is entirely accurate about the effects of climate change on very vulnerable people in Bangladesh, where only a fairly small rise in the water level could wipe out hundreds of thousands of homes. We are directly involved in protecting 15 million vulnerable people from those effects of climate change, and we will continue—through, for example, the development of scuba rice, which grows in very difficult circumstances—to target malnutrition.

Climate Change Projects

Toby Perkins: What steps he plans to take to assess the value for money of aid expenditure on climate change projects.

Stephen O'Brien: Value for money is a process, not a one-off event. The value for money of climate change projects is assessed during design and appraisal, during implementation and, for a sample of completed projects, through evaluation.

Toby Perkins: It is vital at this time that we get absolute value for every penny we spend, but the Minister will be aware that 70% of CO2 emissions come from developed countries, whereas the World Bank estimates that 80% of the damage will be suffered by the developing world. After the Durban climate change conference, what steps will be taken to ensure that new and additional clauses are not dropped from climate change financing?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to imply that the effects of climate change have a continually damaging effect on the poorest people of the world. Therefore, we hope that the discussions that have taken place in Durban will produce the success and the architecture that are required. However, there have been some announcements, particularly as part of Fast Start, to help people from developing countries around the world to adapt to the effects of climate change. That will be through the UN adaptation fund or the least-developed countries fund, and will be particularly for climate resilience programmes in both Ethiopia and Kenya. There is therefore a significant focus on the poorest.

Rushanara Ali: With the Durban climate change conference coming to a close this week, will the Minister tell the House what impact he and his Department have had on shaping Britain’s negotiating position, and whether the Government will live up to the commitment to help to fund the additional $100 billion needed for climate finance for developing countries?

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to that key aspect, but in focusing totally on results and achieving the genuinely transformational climate change effects that we want, this Government have absolutely stood by our promise to meet the requirements to fulfil the international climate fund— the responsibility is split between the Department for International Development, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There has been a series of announcements. We are now two thirds of the way through the Fast Start commitment, so the answer is yes, our commitments are in place.

Equatorial Guinea

Nadine Dorries: What estimate his Department has made of the number of people living in poverty in Equatorial Guinea.

Andrew Mitchell: Although Equatorial Guinea has one of the highest per capita incomes in Africa, nearly 70% of the population live in deep poverty. Most of that per capita income goes to the President and his family and cronies.

Nadine Dorries: I declare an interest. My visit to Equatorial Guinea in the summer was paid for by the Equatorial Guinea Government.
	The Secretary of State is quite right to say that one family control the wealth of Equatorial Guinea and are amassing an unimaginably vast fortune from drilling rights and oil revenue. Will he use his good offices to press upon the Obiang family the fact that the wealth of a nation belongs to its people, and that they should be using that money to alleviate poverty, particularly among children in Equatorial Guinea?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She has been there and so is in a good position to speak out about what she has seen. I should say to her that we do not have any bilateral links with Equatorial Guinea, but she is right: it is a disgrace that its high level of oil wealth is stolen for the corrupt and personal use of an unaccountable and self-serving elite.

Martin Horwood: The Secretary of State rightly draws attention to the risk of corruption in Equatorial Guinea. Is it not the kind of country that could benefit from the legislation that is currently being proposed at European level to make extractive companies publish what they pay in developing countries along the lines of the Dodd-Frank Act in the United States?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, although he, like me, will be sceptical about our ability to persuade a country to do that. We have, however, raised the issue of Equatorial Guinea’s abusive human rights with the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in particular the lack of an independent judiciary, the use of torture and the death penalty and the constraints on the media.

Horn of Africa

Laurence Robertson: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in the horn of Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Mitchell: In spite of significant British-led support, the position in the horn of Africa remains extremely difficult. The coming of the rains has brought some improvement, not least because of British-funded vaccination programmes for more than 916,000 children. I am gravely concerned by recent reports that al-Shabab has ordered 16 humanitarian organisations to cease operations in Somalia.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Does he agree that quite often the conflict, particularly in countries such as Somalia, is the root of the problem, and what can he do to remedy that?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend rightly points to the fact that the Government are focusing on countries that are mired in fragility and conflict. It is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister has decided that Britain should host a conference on Somalia to try to ensure that we tackle the causes of state failure as well as the symptoms of it.

David Crausby: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Kenyan invasion of Somalia will not hinder the distribution of aid?

Andrew Mitchell: It is clear that there are a large number of difficulties, including the disposition of forces in Somalia, which hinders the distribution of aid. The biggest hindrance of all is the work of al-Shabab, which has kicked out 16 aid agencies. We are now very reliant on the International Committee of the Red Cross and two British non-governmental organisations, Save the Children and Oxfam, for getting relief through to an enormous number of very malnourished children who are in danger of dying as a result of this famine.

Sri Lanka

Tom Brake: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in refugee camps in Sri Lanka.

Stephen O'Brien: About 7,500 displaced people remain in camps in Sri Lanka, out of about 300,000 at the end of the conflict in 2009. British humanitarian aid for displaced people in Sri Lanka ended in March 2011, except for demining work which will continue until 2013.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. May I ask him to intervene on behalf of the refugees who are still left in the Menik Farm refugee camp to ensure that they are allowed to return to their homes rather than to a 600-acre plot of newly cleared jungle?

Stephen O'Brien: I greatly appreciate the importance of that issue. The work being done through the conflict
	prevention pool to help to bring peace in Sri Lanka includes assisting with police reforms and strengthening Sri Lanka’s diasporic communities—some of which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency—to drive economic development and reconciliation to help former combatants to integrate back into their communities, which are precisely the things that my right hon. Friend is looking for. We also supported the EU position over the removal of what is called the GSP-plus as a means to press the Sri Lankan Government to meet their human rights obligations.

Topical Questions

Tom Greatrex: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Mitchell: I attended last week’s high level forum on aid effectiveness in Busan. The United Kingdom was instrumental in securing an international agreement that, for the first time, includes new providers of development co-operation such as China and Brazil. I have also recently visited Burma for talks with the Government and with Aung San Suu Kyi. It appears that the political tectonic plates in Burma are shifting.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State will I am sure be aware that 2013 is the bicentenary of the birth of David Livingstone from Blantyre in my constituency. Will he undertake to work with the Scotland Office and other Departments of the UK Government to ensure that they contribute to the celebrations and commemoration of the work of David Livingstone in 2013?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of development in Malawi, which is challenged by the failure of the Government there to recognise the importance of taking the necessary steps to support very vulnerable people. The Scottish Government are doing a good job of supporting what is happening in Malawi. We are now working in an environment where Britain no longer gives the Government there direct budget support, but ensures that our support gets through by other mechanisms.

Stephen Barclay: Given the Department’s focus on giving aid to countries that are considered fragile, will my right hon. Friend update the House on the current estimates for fraud and corruption losses this year, and confirm that resources are being reallocated to tackle that, so that aid gets to those most in need?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes the most important point: the Department for International Development has zero tolerance of corruption. The independent watchdog reported last week that although there was no evidence of corruption in this year’s programme, it was necessary to take new measures when we work in very difficult areas. I have instructed the civil service to implement all the independent watchdog’s recommendations, lock, stock and barrel. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House really must come to order. The Secretary of State is having some difficulty being heard, and that should not be the case.

Ivan Lewis: Last week the Chancellor announced that, partially as a result of the Government’s failed economic plan, DFID will have over £1 billion less to spend than previously planned. The Secretary of State has rightly focused on transparency and predictability of funding. In that spirit, will he make it clear which budgets that £1 billion will be taken from? In that context, will he reassure the House that he continues to enjoy the support of his party in pressing ahead with legislation to enshrine the 0.7% target in law?

Andrew Mitchell: Even for a Labour spokesman, the hon. Gentleman has a neck the length of a giraffe’s. Let me make it clear to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took action last week to ensure that we did not exceed the Government’s 0.7% promise. Personally, I am enormously proud to be a member of a Government who, in spite of the difficult economic circumstances that we face, have stuck by their commitments to the poorest of the world.

Jesse Norman: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done in Africa by Concern Universal, which is based in Hereford. Can he outline the measures taken to improve resilience against humanitarian disaster in Malawi?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend again identifies the difficulties of operating in Malawi when Britain has stopped giving direct budget support. However, we are finding other mechanisms, particularly to address food security issues, and in the last 10 days we have approved additional funding for fertiliser to ensure that the next harvest has the best possible chance of succeeding.

Thomas Docherty: Although the famine in the horn of Africa is obviously the top priority there, future drought management is equally important. Will the Secretary of State tell us what aid his Department is giving to address this issue?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman identifies the importance of having a wide set of measures to tackle famine and drought. We have given strong support to the Food and Agriculture Organisation to support livestock, and we are actively looking at ways to ensure that the crops do not fail next year. All the measures that we take are designed to boost resilience. It is an interesting fact that, as a result of the changes made in Ethiopia, the prevalence of malnutrition in that country has dropped by 50% in the last 10 years.

Karl McCartney: In these times of austerity and hardship for so many of my constituents in Lincoln, how can my right hon. Friend justify his reported desire to legislate to force successive Governments to continue funding projects in 27 other countries, including India?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend will be aware that the coalition Government looked at our bilateral programmes and reduced by 16 the number of countries in which we have country-to-country programmes precisely to ensure that we champion value for money. For example, on the
	first day we stopped aid to China and Russia. His constituents can be reassured that we are focusing on results and ensuring that every pound of taxpayers’ hard-earned money delivers 100p of results on the ground.

Barbara Keeley: Following the postponement of the election results in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, does the Secretary of State feel that the UK and the international community could have done more to ensure better oversight of those elections, and does he support the call for election results to be published polling district by polling district?

Andrew Mitchell: We have had 89% of the votes counted. We are pressing the Electoral Commission to publish the results on a polling station by polling station basis so that any necessary appeals by those taking part can take place. Britain spent more than £30 million ensuring that registration and other things went ahead before the election. We must wait to see what the commission says about the credibility of these elections shortly. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have a bit of order for the former Chairman of the International Development Select Committee, Mr Tony Baldry.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend is the first UK Minister to have visited Burma for a very long time. Will he please take this opportunity to update the House on the outcome of that visit, particularly on his discussions with Aung San Suu Kyi?

Andrew Mitchell: It does appear that the political tectonic plates are moving in Burma. The Government of Burma have made it clear that they are committed to releasing the political prisoners—in particular, Min Ko Naing, one of the leaders of the students of 1988—and also committed to the 48 by-elections proceeding. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have said that they will stand in those elections. We await credible elections with fair and open results.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Andrew Rosindell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 December.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Andrew Rosindell: The British people want to see two things from this week’s European summit: first, a resolute and uncompromising defence of Britain’s national interests; and, secondly, an end to the disastrous crisis of the euro—a currency that the Labour party still want us to join. Will the Prime Minister do Britain proud on Friday and show some bulldog spirit in Brussels?

David Cameron: I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that that is exactly what I will do. The British national interest means absolutely that we need to help resolve this crisis in the eurozone. It is freezing the British economy, just as it is freezing economies right across Europe. Resolving this crisis is about jobs, growth, business and investment right here in the UK. At the same time we must seek safeguards for Britain. That is the right thing to do. I can absolutely guarantee that as long as I am here there is absolutely no prospect of us joining the euro—something on which the Leader of the Opposition takes a different view.

Edward Miliband: Six weeks ago the Prime Minister said that
	“the idea of some limited treaty change in the future might give us”
	the opportunity
	“to repatriate powers back to Britain”.
	At the European summit, what powers will he be arguing to repatriate?

David Cameron: As I explained, at the summit—[Interruption.] Let me explain—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We are all interested in hearing the answer. Let us hear it.

David Cameron: As I explained, we will have the key aim of helping to resolve the eurozone crisis, and we believe that means European eurozone countries coming together and doing more things together. If they choose to do that through a treaty at 27 in which we are involved, we will insist on some safeguards for Britain—and, yes, that means making sure we are stronger and better able to do things in the UK to protect our own national interests. Obviously, the more countries in the eurozone ask for, the more we will ask for in return, but we will judge that on the basis of what matters most to Britain.

Edward Miliband: The more the Prime Minister talked, the more confusing his position became, quite frankly. Let me remind him that on the eve of the biggest post-war rebellion against a Prime Minister on Europe, he was telling his Back Benchers that the opportunity of treaty change would mean in the future the repatriation of powers. That was his position six weeks ago. Today he writes a 1,000-word article in The Times, but there is not one mention of the phrase “repatriation of powers”. Why does the Prime Minister think it is in the national interest to tell his Back Benchers one thing to quell a rebellion on Europe, and to tell his European partners another thing?

David Cameron: I do not resile from a single word that I said in that debate. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we want to do, specifically and particularly in the area of financial services, in which this country has a massive national interest. Let me remind him that it represents 10% of GDP, 3% of our trade surplus, and 7% of UK employment. I want to ensure that we have more power and control here in the UK to determine these matters, in complete contrast to the Labour Government, who gave away power after power. They gave up our power and they made us join the bail-out fund; we have had to get out of the bail-out fund. They
	gave up our rebate and received nothing in return; we managed to freeze the European budget. There is one party—one Government—that defends Britain’s interest, and another that always surrenders it.

Edward Miliband: I think the short answer is— [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me say to the usual, predictable noisy tendency what I said to those on the other side a moment ago. People must be heard, and that is what will happen, however long it takes.

Edward Miliband: I think the short answer is that six weeks ago the Prime Minister was promising his Back Benchers a handbagging for Europe, but now he is reduced to hand wringing. That is the reality of this Prime Minister. The problem for Britain is that at the most important European summit for a generation, which matters hugely to families and businesses up and down the country, he is simply left on the sidelines. Is not the truth that we have a Prime Minister who is caught between his promises in opposition and the reality of government? That is why Britain is losing out in Europe.

David Cameron: I am afraid that even the best-scripted joke about handbags will not save the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership. He talks about being isolated. Let me explain to him where we would be if we adopted Labour’s policies. If we adopted your spending and your deficit policies, and if we were in the euro, I would not be going to Brussels to fight for Britain; I would be going to Brussels to get a bail-out. By implementing the proposals that it is advancing, Labour would put Britain in such a bad position that the tax changes would be written not by the shadow Chancellor, but by the German Chancellor.

Andrew Tyrie: There is a wide spectrum of views on Europe throughout the House. [Interruption.] One can sense that even from the response to my remark. Will the Prime Minister take to the European Council the straightforward message that the one thing most likely to unite the House of Commons would be the perception of a calculated assault from Brussels—not even in its own interests—on the well-being of the UK financial services industry, and on the 1.3 million people in all our constituencies who work in it?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course we want to see a greater rebalancing of our economy and more jobs in manufacturing, aerospace and technology; however, the economy that we inherited is very dependent on financial services. I think we should celebrate the fact that it is a world-class industry, not just for Britain but for Europe—but it is absolutely vital for us to safeguard it. We are currently seeing it under continued regulatory attack from Brussels. I think that there will be an opportunity, particularly if there is a treaty at 27, to ensure that there are some safeguards—not just for the industry, but to give us greater power and control in terms of regulation here in the House of Commons. I think that that is in the interests of the entire country, and it is something that I will be fighting for on Friday.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Prime Minister agree that the recent escalation of industrial action in the public sector—which, incidentally, was not a “damp squib” in my part of the world—was a result of genuine anger about the sheer unfairness of Government action to deal with pension contributions, which is making people on low and middle incomes pay for the horrendous mistakes made at the top?

David Cameron: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is plain wrong, because the lowest paid workers are not being asked to contribute more to their pensions. On fairness, let me make one point: under our offer, a primary school teacher earning £32,000 a year could receive a pension worth £20,000 a year, but private sector workers, who, let us remember, are the people putting their money into these pensions, would have to pay 38% of their salary—almost half—to get an equivalent pension. Of course there is an issue of fairness, and we must play fair by public sector workers, but we must also be fair to private sector workers, who are putting their money into these pensions.

Steven Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for this country to lead Europe into the hope and potential of a new post-bureaucratic age?

David Cameron: I think that there are opportunities for Britain in Europe, and we should start from the premise that it is in Britain’s interest to be in the single market. We are a trading nation, so we need those markets open, and to be able to determine the rules of those markets. As Europe changes, of course there will be opportunities, but the first priority at the end of this week must be to ensure that the eurozone crisis, which is having such a bad effect on our economy, is resolved. At the same time, however, we should be very clear about the British national interest: safeguarding the single markets and the financial services, and looking out for the interests of UK plc.

Mark Tami: Will the Prime Minister be having his usual Christmas bash with Rebekah Brooks and Jeremy Clarkson? If so, will they be talking about just how out of touch they all are with British public opinion?

David Cameron: I seem to remember that the annual sleepover was with the former Labour Prime Minister. I shall be having a quiet family Christmas.

Mark Pritchard: May I offer the Prime Minister my full support as he promises to stand up for the British national interest at the EU summit on Friday? Is it not the case, however, that Europe and the eurozone will be saved not by bail-out after bail-out of the eurozone but by making Europe more competitive, reducing its high unit costs and cutting regulation and red tape on business?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I understand why leading members of the eurozone, such as the Germans, want tougher fiscal rules on budget deficits for eurozone members, but it is right to point out that the heart of the crisis was caused by
	current account deficits in some countries and large current account surpluses in others. Unless we solve the competitiveness problem at the heart of the euro crisis, the crisis will keep recurring. Our argument throughout has been that not only do we need tough rules on budget deficits and to see euro institutions, including the European Central Bank, acting in concert and acting strongly, but that we need to resolve the competitiveness problem at the heart of the single currency to deal with the crisis. I shall continue to make those points on Thursday and Friday.

Edward Miliband: Will the Prime Minister confirm that according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, next year the poorest third of families will lose three times as much as the richest third, as a result of his economic policy?

David Cameron: No, the right hon. Gentleman’s figures are wrong. If we take all the things that the Government have done—that is the right way to measure this—we find that the top 10% will see losses nearly 10 times greater than the bottom 10% will. I believe that that is fair. One point that has not been properly understood, but which is important, is that the richest 10% in our country will experience the biggest reduction in income, not only in cash terms but proportionately. So we are being fair. It is incredibly difficult to deal with the debts and the deficit that he and his party left behind, but we are determined to do it fairly.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister is simply wrong again. The figures are there, and the poorest third are losing far more than the richest third. He used to say, “I’m not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.” [Hon. Members: “He’s not!”] No, that is right: he is not balancing the budget—there is £158 billion more of borrowing—but he is hitting the poor. To give him credit, though, there is one group for which he is easing the pain; this has not got the publicity that it deserves. He is delaying for one year the tax on private jets, at the same time as hitting the poorest families in this country. Will he confirm that a working mother earning £300 a week is seeing rising VAT, her tax credits cut, child benefit frozen and her maternity grant cut?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman had 13 years in which to tax private jets—and now former Labour leaders are jetting around in them! In two years we will have taxed them. He quotes the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Let me remind him of what it said about Labour’s plans. It said that Labour’s policies would lead to
	“even higher debt levels over this Parliament”—[Interruption.]
	Labour Members do not like to hear their own policies being taken apart. [Interruption.] Calm down. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. What I simply say to everybody is that I want to get down the Order Paper. If the Prime Minister wants to give a brief answer, let us hear it.

David Cameron: Let me just explain what the IFS said. It said that the right hon. Gentleman’s plans implied
	“even higher debt levels over this Parliament than those we will in fact see.”
	That is the truth of it. If we want the stimulus we are giving the economy through low interest rates, we have to stick to the plans we have set out. There is not a party in Europe, apart from the Moldovan communists, that backs his plans.

Edward Miliband: Now I have heard everything. The Prime Minister is talking about a stimulus, but he does not understand: he is cutting too far and too fast. That is why we have problems in our economy. Of course he does not want to tell us what the IFS says about his plans; he is the Prime Minister, after all. It says:
	“New tax and benefit measures are, on average, a takeaway from lower-income families with children”.
	The figures speak for themselves. His changes are hitting women twice as hard as men. Is not the truth that he is the first Prime Minister in modern times to say, “It’s the women and children first”?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman’s soundbites get weaker and weaker as his leadership gets weaker and weaker; that is the truth of it. If we look at what we have done in lifting 1.1 million people out of tax, it is mostly women who benefit. If we look at the increase in the pension to £5.35 starting next April, that will benefit mostly women. If we consider the issue of public sector pensions, we are helping the lowest paid in the public sector, and that will help women. Yes, we are giving the economy a stimulus by keeping our interest rates low. We have interest rates at 2%, while they are at 5% in Italy, 5% in Spain and 30% in Greece. If we followed his advice we would have interest rates rocketing, businesses going bust and more people out of work. That is what Labour offers, and that is why it will never be trusted on our economy again.

John Thurso: Small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency are still having grave difficulty in accessing reasonable finance. A major contributory factor in that is lack of competition. Will the Government consider breaking up the nationalised banks to create more competition on the high street?

David Cameron: I do think we have opportunities to increase competition on the high street, and obviously, as we look to return the state banks to the private sector we will have further opportunities. We have already managed to take one important step forward by getting Northern Rock back out there lending to businesses and households, properly established in the north-east of England.

Mr Speaker: We now come to a closed question from Mr Jeremy Corbyn. He is not here. I call Mr John Baron.

John Baron: Our history of repatriating powers from the European Union is not a happy one. May I therefore suggest a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the EU based on free trade, growth and competitiveness, which other countries enjoy, not on political union and dead-weight regulation? This EU summit is a defining moment—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Will the Prime Minister seize the moment?

David Cameron: I am a little more optimistic than my hon. Friend. On the bail-out power that the last Government gave away, we are returning it to the United Kingdom via the European stability mechanism treaty, so we have returned a power. More recently, we have just won an exemption from all EU legislation to make sure that from January 2012 micro-enterprises will not face any new EU regulation at all.
	In answer to the question of whether we will go in there and fight for British interests on Thursday and Friday—yes, absolutely we will. But let us be clear: there is the option of a treaty at 27, where we have the ability to say yes or no and as a result get a price for that, but there is also always the possibility that the eurozone members at 17 will go ahead and form a treaty of their own. Again, we have some leverage in that situation, because they need the use of EU institutions, but we should recognise exactly what our leverage is and make the most of it.

Pat McFadden: Last year the Prime Minister’s manifesto promised to repatriate legal rights, criminal justice, and employment and social legislation. His article in The Times this morning is silent on all those issues, and the Justice Secretary has said that this agenda is not realistic anyway. Does the Prime Minister regret leading his party up the garden path and forcing himself into a choice between ditching his manifesto and potentially vetoing a treaty that may be essential to avoid huge damage to the UK economy?

David Cameron: What I regret is that the Labour party gave away so many powers. It is going to take a while to get some of them back, but we are making progress. When the right hon. Gentleman was in government there were repeated increases in the EU budget, whereas this year we have achieved an EU budget freeze. When he was in government he gave away the bail-out power and we had to pour billions of pounds into other countries. We have got that power back, and I believe that with strong negotiation, standing up for Britain, we can help to clear up the mess that Labour left us.

Andrew Percy: Over the past decade and a half there has been an explosion of personal debt levels in this country, yet we allow our young people to leave school without the proper skills to make informed decisions. Next week the all-party group on financial education for young people will report on where we feel this can fit into the curriculum. Will the Prime Minister read that report and meet a small group of MPs to discuss how we can ensure that young people are more financially literate in the future?

David Cameron: I shall be very happy to meet my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this, having been a supply teacher for many years in the constituency that he now represents.

Andrew Percy: I was a teacher.

David Cameron: He was a permanent teacher as well; excuse me. Financial education is important for our young people, and I look forward to seeing the report of his all-party group.

Lilian Greenwood: The Prime Minister once said that he wanted to lead the most family-friendly Government ever, so is it not a disgrace that of nearly £19 billion of cuts that his Government have announced so far, more than £13 billion have fallen on women?

David Cameron: What I say to the hon. Lady is that it was this Government who introduced 15 hours of free nursery care for three and four-year-olds—something that the Labour party never managed to do in government —and despite the appalling mess that we were left, in this autumn statement we put in an extra £380 million to double the number of disadvantaged two-year-olds whose parents will get free nursery care. That is real progress and real help for families—something Labour never delivered.

Ian Swales: What would the Prime Minister say to a council such as Redcar and Cleveland borough council, which is considering rejecting Government funding for a council tax freeze next year, and instead charging my hard-pressed constituents 3.5% more?

David Cameron: I very much hope that all councils will take up the offer of a council tax freeze, because in this year of all years, when people face economic hardship, it is important that we help where we can. That is why we have cut the petrol tax. That is why we have allowed the council tax freeze to go ahead. So my advice to people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency would be to support parties that back a council tax freeze.

Jim Dobbin: Since the Education Act 1944, successive Governments have supported subsidised travel for students who live 3 miles or more from the faith school of their choice. Some local authorities are beginning to cut back on that financial support, and I do not think any Member in this House wants to see that happen. Can the Prime Minister encourage local authorities to embrace the spirit of the 1944 Act on this particular issue?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. I support school choice—parents having the ability to choose between schools—and I also support faith schools. Indeed, I have chosen a faith school for my own children. So I will look very carefully at what he says and at what local authorities are doing, discuss it with the Education Secretary and see what we can do to enhance not only choice, but the faith-based education that many of our constituents choose.

Andrew Turner: Does the Prime Minister agree that in exchange for supporting the euro countries in dealing with their crisis, we should be seeking changes in the law of immigration, employment and fishing rights, in order to support our economy?

David Cameron: As I have said, if they choose a treaty at 27, that treaty requires our consent. We should therefore think of what are the things most in our national interests; I have talked about keeping the single market open and the importance of financial services. Clearly, the more that eurozone countries want to do in a treaty of 27, and the more changes they want to make,
	the greater ability we will have to ask for sensible things that make sense for Britain. I am very keen that we should exercise the leverage we have to do a good deal for Britain, and that is exactly what I will be doing in Brussels this Thursday and Friday.

Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister promised:
	“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS”.
	Why are his Government closing the accident and emergency and maternity services at King George hospital, Ilford, cutting front-line NHS staff and borrowing £158 billion extra? Should he not have said, “I’ll cut the NHS, not the deficit”?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is just wrong, because the deficit is coming down and NHS spending is going up throughout this Parliament. I note that his own party’s health spokesman says that it is “irresponsible” to increase spending on the NHS. We do not think it is irresponsible; we think it is the right thing to do. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Health Secretary has set out the criteria for all local changes, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. There has to be proper public and patient engagement, sound clinical evidence, support from GP commissioners and proper support for patient choice.

Andrea Leadsom: The Prime Minister has taken a strong interest in the incredible work of the Oxford parent infant project in helping families that are struggling to form a strong attachment with their babies. Two months ago I started a new sister charity in Northamptonshire. Given the Prime Minister’s interest in strengthening families, will he commit to looking again at the incredible work that can be done in early intervention, which saves a fortune in the criminal and care services later on?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know about OXPIP and I am delighted that she is expanding the project into her own constituency. All the evidence shows that the more we can do to help children and their parents between the ages of nought and two—the key time at which so much disadvantage, which can have such a bad impact later on in life, can set in—the better. That is why her work, and that of Members across the House, in prioritising early intervention is so important for our country.

Bill Esterson: The Prime Minister was asked by his constituent Phillip Hall, who runs his own construction company, to cut VAT on home repairs and improvements. Cutting VAT on home improvements has the support of more than 50 business organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses. Will the Prime Minister support that cut in VAT, which would help jobs, growth and business?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman’s problem is that the Opposition have a huge list of extra spending and tax cuts that they want, but as we have heard again today in Question Time, they oppose every single spending reduction we are making and every single fundamental reform to get better value for money. One can only
	conclude that spending would go up, borrowing would rocket, interest rates would increase and the economy would be left in very dire straits.

Julian Lewis: Why is my right hon. Friend supporting a policy of fiscal unification for the eurozone states that, if it happens, will undoubtedly lead to the creation of a dangerously undemocratic single Government for those countries?

David Cameron: The point that I would make to my hon. Friend is that I do not want Britain to join the euro—I think Britain is better off outside the euro—but the countries that have chosen to join the euro have to make that system work. In order to do that, they need not just stronger fiscal rules, which is clear, but greater competitiveness. It is for them to decide how to go ahead and do those things. We should maintain Britain’s position outside the euro, and ensure that we safeguard our interests at the same time. That is exactly what I will be doing in Brussels.

Alun Michael: Ten thousand service personnel will have heard of their real-terms cut in pay while serving on the front line in Afghanistan. What does the Prime Minister think that disgraceful cut will do for the morale of those who are risking their lives for us?

David Cameron: What we have done is double the operational allowance that people in Afghanistan receive. They are extremely brave people and we should be doing right by them; that is why we doubled that allowance. We have also increased the council tax disregard and made sure that the pupil premium is available not just to children on free school meals but to all service families’ children. We have put the military covenant into the law of our land and we will go on defending, promoting and protecting our brilliant armed services personnel and their families.

Mark Lancaster: The Nun Wood wind farm application spans three local authorities, each of which independently assessed it against their local plans and rejected it. Subsequently a distant, unelected planning inspector overruled them and even moved his decision forward by three months so that it could be made the day before the Localism Bill got Royal Assent. The Prime Minister will understand my constituents’ anger. Will he look into what appears to be a blatant slap in the face for localism?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, as a result of the changes we are making it will not be possible in future to overrule such decisions so as to meet a regional target, because we have now got rid of those regional targets. We are giving much more authority and many more decision-making powers to those local bodies. Our planning reforms will ensure that local people and their councils decide what people need, and how to meet that need.

Nigel Dodds: Is the Prime Minister worried that the scandal of mis-selling in this country has just got a lot worse, given the previous broken guarantees to the public? He is now rejecting a vote on the latest European changes. He has mis-sold the issue to the public at large. Will he give a guarantee
	to the House that there will be an opportunity for the British people to deliver their verdict on the changes that are happening in Europe?

David Cameron: What this Government have given is something that no previous Government have done in this country. We have passed a law that means that if ever this Government, any future Government, or any future House of Commons, try to pass powers from Westminster to Brussels they will have to ask the British people in a referendum first. That means that there would have to have been a referendum on the Lisbon, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, and other treaties. People feel betrayed by what happened under the previous Government, but that cannot happen again.

Fiona Bruce: Small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine of the economy in my constituency and will play a very important part in our economic recovery. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that a key factor in achieving growth, as well as in resolving the eurozone crisis, is to take action in Britain’s interests to tackle and reduce the huge regulatory burdens on small companies, so many of which come from Europe?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to start here, in our own backyard as it were, and stop the gold-plating and over-regulation that has happened in the past. That is why we have the red tape challenge, with every rule being put up on the internet so that people can show how little we need to keep. That is why we have the one-in, one-out rule that applies to every Minister: no one can introduce a regulation without getting rid of a regulation. We have just achieved a major breakthrough in Europe: micro-businesses employing fewer than 10 people will not be subject to European regulation from 2012 onwards. That is a big breakthrough, and it is something that has not happened before in Europe. It shows that if we make the arguments for growth, jobs and enterprise, we can win them.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Prime Minister has today refused to accept that women and children will bear the brunt of his failed economic policy. No wonder he continues to turn women off. Will he accept the Treasury’s own figures showing that 100,000 more children will be living in poverty as a result of his policies?

David Cameron: How on earth does it advantage women and children to pile them up with debt after debt that they will then have to pay back? We have been standing here for 33 minutes and all we have heard from Opposition Members is proposals for tax reductions and spending increases, about reforms they would not go ahead with, and about scrapping the changes to public sector pensions. They would take those women and children whom we are concerned about, pile them high with debt and let them live under that burden for the rest of their days.

Peter Tapsell: May I hark back a month to 7 November, when, as is recorded at column 28 of that day’s Hansard, I put three suggestions to my right hon. Friend for containing the euro crisis, with which he appeared to agree? None of
	them, as he will have noticed, has been acted upon by the European Central Bank, so may I now express to him my belief that the alternative policy of a fiscal union will, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has just said, pose a great threat to the liberty of Europe, because it would inevitably make Germany still more dominant? Can the Germans be persuaded to study the reason for the Boston tea party? “No taxation without representation” is the bastion of freedom.

David Cameron: As ever—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We have heard the question. We now want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

David Cameron: As ever, the Father of the House speaks with great knowledge, wisdom and foresight. The reason why he and I do not want to join the single currency is that we would not be prepared to put up with a supra-national power that would tell us what our debt, our deficit and everything else should be. That is why we do not want to join. If the countries of the eurozone want to make their system work, it is clear to me that fiscal rules are one thing that they may need, but that will not be enough without proper competitiveness, and—this is the third point that my right hon. Friend made—the full-hearted intervention and support of the institutions of the eurozone, including the European Central Bank. But it is a decision that those eurozone countries have to make themselves.

Point of Order

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members of the House are aware of their responsibilities in relation to the rules about not abusing their position in the House and about their personal and financial business interests. Therefore is it appropriate—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I am grateful to him for what he has said so far, but an allegation of improper use of House resources, which I understand to be the kernel of his point, is not a matter for the Chair. I thank him for giving me notice of his proposed point of order, but I should tell him that any complaint about alleged misuse of such resources should be made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Very simply, it is not a matter that should be raised on the Floor of the House. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to other right hon. and hon. Members.
	If there are no more points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule Bill. I call Mike Freer. May I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and courteously, affording to the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy as they would wish to be extended to themselves in such circumstances?

Tax Refunds Regulation (Review)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mike Freer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission a review of the timelines with which tax refunds owed to taxpayers by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are made; as part of that review to consider the merits of making such refunds payable on the day they are calculated and applying interest and penalties to such refunds 30 days after they are payable; and for connected purposes.
	I realise that I may be tempting fate, as I will be submitting my own tax return to HMRC within the next few weeks.
	HMRC does pay interest, but the late payment rate is six times the unpaid refunds rate. Currently, with record lows in interest rates, the late payment rate is 3%, but the unpaid refunds rate is just 0.5%. When we look at penalties, the inequality is starker. Yes, there are a wide range of penalties applying to virtually every tax. For instance, if a taxpayer has not received a self-assessment notification, has not realised that they may need one and so do not ask for one, they may have to pay a penalty of up to 30% of additional tax due, even if they did not know the process they had to follow. A taxpayer, whether personal or business, who makes an inaccurate return through carelessness, not deliberate error, may also have to pay a penalty of up to 30% of the extra tax due. I am not aware of HMRC being penalised if it makes a mistake or its systems and processes contribute to late or unpaid refunds, yet that happens for the taxpayer.
	The system is designed to push unpaid refunds into a suspense account. Errors can easily be made. For example, section 4 of the online form asks who will receive some or all of the overpayment. If a taxpayer does not provide bank details, rather than the Revenue simply issuing a cheque, the moneys are not issued and are held in a suspense account. The Revenue states that no repayment will be made automatically until the taxpayer contacts it. It could be argued that the taxpayer could and should provide accurate details and that the Revenue is right to withhold payment, but that would not negate the Revenue issuing a cheque. It simply chooses to withhold the money.
	The key issue before us is the discrepancy between the penalties and interest rates levied by HMRC and the interest rates and lack of penalties levied on it. This is particularly relevant when the taxpayer has followed the rules but it has taken months for refunds to be paid. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has advised me that the catch-all reason for late payments is the security checks used to validate the identity of taxpayers, which appear to cause delays of up to several months. HMRC is right to combat fraud by undertaking such checks, but they are left to the very end of the refund process and are deliberately designed to delay the refund. Taxpayers and tax advisers often think that that is more to do with cash management by the Treasury than combating fraud.
	Organisations assisting low-income groups have told me that delays in receiving expected refunds can cause disproportionate financial hardship for low-income taxpayers. Having coped with the delays in the onset of
	the process, when routine correspondence can take up to 12 weeks, the problem is then compounded in some cases by further delays of up to eight weeks for security checks to be made. For example, a pensioner I know of waited four months for a refund of just £70. That might not sound like a lot of money, but it is for a pensioner living on the basic state pension. The pensioner said, “We have always been prompt in settling our dues and expect the same in return.” The pensioner was living in the west midlands. The tax that was erroneously collected was paid to the Cardiff office, an apology for the mistake was received from the Portsmouth office and the cheque eventually arrived from the Glasgow office. No doubt the Revenue has reasons for handling different parts of the process in different parts of the UK, but a multi-part process handled in multiple offices cannot be conducive to efficiency.
	How can we focus the Revenue on improving its customer service? In my experience of dealing with the public sector, if we grab them by the budgets, minds will follow. If the Revenue had to pay real rates of interest and penalties, it might be motivated to streamline its processes and issue refunds promptly. It fulfils an important role. The taxes it collects fund our essential services, and I have no issue with that. Being rigorous in collecting overdue tax is fair, but it seems oblivious to the scale and impact of tardy refunds.
	My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) that the Revenue does not hold information on the average length of time taken to process a repayment. It is simply not important enough to it. In my business experience, what gets measured gets done.
	The Treasury Committee agrees. In its report in July, it commented on HMRC service standards, and one of its recommendations was that the HMRC work closely with professional bodies, charities and businesses to develop a series of performance indicators that credibly reflect customers’ end-to-end experience of dealing with the Revenue. Those indicators should be regularly published. If the interest paid on late payments and the penalties on those were published, I suspect that we would see a shift in the relationship between the HMRC and the taxpayer.
	The issue of fairness is paramount in this Bill. Taxpayers should be entitled to the same level of interest and penalties on late refunds as the Revenue expects to levy on late payments. In this place, we often say that we govern only with the consent of the people. We have allowed the relationship between the Revenue and the taxpayer to deteriorate to that of master and slave. It is time to rebalance that relationship.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mike Freer, Mr Matthew Offord, Andrew Percy, Justin Tomlinson, Priti Patel, Andrew Bingham, Jesse Norman, Jane Ellison and Simon Hart present the Bill.
	Mike Freer accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March 2012, and to be printed (Bill 259).

Appointment of the Chair of the National Audit Office

David Cameron: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Andrew Likierman to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office.
	This is the first time that a Prime Minister has moved a motion to appoint the chair of the National Audit Office, and it is a direct result of the legislation that we have brought forward to implement the Public Accounts Commission’s recommendations on strengthening the governance of the National Audit Office, including through new board arrangements and an independent chair.
	At a time when we are getting to grips with a record budget deficit, and when families and businesses up and down the country are working hard to make ends meet, it is more important than ever that we get the best possible value for money in public service delivery. That is why, for example, this Government have delivered £3.7 billion of savings in just 10 months—enough to pay the salaries of 200,000 junior nurses or 150,000 secondary school teachers.
	The National Audit Office has a vital role to play in holding the Government to account and in ensuring that we achieve the greatest possible value for money. The proposed chair is Professor Sir Andrew Likierman, currently the NAO’s acting chairman. He was appointed following an open competition by my predecessor the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and the former Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). The intention was that Professor Likierman should become the chair of the new NAO in due course, and he has indicated his willingness to continue in the role for a further three years.
	Professor Likierman is a distinguished public servant with extensive knowledge and experience of business and public service. Since taking up the acting chair role, he has established the NAO’s board as an effective governance body, providing support and independent challenge to the NAO’s decision-making process. He has also provided counsel and advice to the Comptroller and Auditor General at a time of change for both the NAO and the central Government bodies that it audits.
	I believe it is desirable for Professor Likierman to be appointed under the new legislation in order to provide continuity as the NAO formally adopts its new governance arrangements, and I have no hesitation in commending this motion to the House.

Margaret Hodge: I am pleased briefly to take part in the debate and to confirm the appointment of Andrew Likierman as chair of the National Audit Office.
	In my role as Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, may I take this opportunity to endorse what the Prime Minister has said about the suitability of Sir Andrew? Although it was my predecessor, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who was involved in the appointment of Sir Andrew as acting chairman
	of the NAO, it is clear that in any field of open competition Sir Andrew’s qualifications are outstanding. He brings with him a wide breadth and depth of experience in financial reporting, Government finance and issues of governance. His distinguished career has encompassed both the public and private sectors in an academic and a professional capacity. He is a past managing director of the Treasury and head of the Government Accountancy Service. He has advised the Treasury Committee and is currently dean of the London Business School. His suitability for this role is unquestionable.
	As the Prime Minister said, Sir Andrew has already played an important role at the NAO. He has been instrumental in establishing the new governance arrangements and providing the leadership to form an effective board during a time of organisational change. He has already contributed to enhancing the credibility, reputation and influence of the National Audit Office in supporting both Government and Parliament to secure better value for money, particularly in the current fiscal environment. I have no doubt that Sir Andrew has had a great and positive impact since he was first appointed in 2009 and that he will continue to do so in future. I wish him well.

Edward Leigh: I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister. I remember that his predecessor was a bit cross about having to come to this rather quiet little affair, with all his other very heavy responsibilities, especially as he had already appointed the previous Comptroller and Auditor General as an acting Comptroller and Auditor General.
	It is worth emphasising that the reason it is important that the Prime Minister is here is that this is the one job—in fact, there are two jobs, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the chair of the National Audit Office—that is not in the sole gift of the Prime Minister. At least there is one job he does not appoint; I am sure that he is prepared to concede this one. It is very important that he is not in sole control and that he appoints the heads of both these bodies—the chairman of the NAO and the CAG—with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. By definition, my right hon. Friend is a member of the Government—that is obvious—and, by changing the rules of this House to create a unique rule, we have ensured that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is always a member of the Opposition. The two people who run the National Audit Office are therefore appointed on a genuinely all-party basis. That is essential.
	Of course, I welcome this sealing of the appointment of Sir Andrew. I could hardly say anything else, as I appointed him in the first place. He is a superbly well qualified person for this job. The reason we created the new role of chairman of the board—I worked with Alan Williams, the former Father of the House, to whom, once again, I pay tribute for his many long years of service to this House—was that previously the Comptroller and Auditor General was, in effect, a dictator. He had sole control of the organisation; there was no board, and none of his judgments should be questioned. It is quite right that when the CAG looks at the accounts of Government— when he is holding the Government to account—he should be completely independent and
	act on his own, and nobody must be able to gainsay him. He must be able to look into every filing cabinet, summon every civil servant, and expose every scandal. However, in terms of running a modern organisation like the National Audit Office, it was right that we should modernise, move with the times, and create a proper board that could oversee the organisation as opposed to the policy, and that is what we did with the appointment of Sir Andrew. He is a good candidate and I welcome his appointment.

Richard Bacon: I, too, rise to support the motion. Sir Andrew Likierman is a highly suitable candidate.
	I must say that at first, I had doubts—not about Sir Andrew, but about the office of chairman of the National Audit Office and the suitability of having a board. I was concerned about maintaining the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and making sure that his independence was no way impinged on by any further statutory inhibitions of any kind. I am now satisfied, especially as Sir Andrew has served as the shadow chairman for the past 18 months to two years, that that will not happen and, moreover, that the arrangements between the National Audit Office and its chairman, and in relation to the statutory functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which must not be impeded, have been satisfactorily worked out.
	Those functions include access, if required, to every filing cabinet. May I say to the Prime Minister that that includes, if required, access to Cabinet papers? That is not—because the Comptroller and Auditor General, as we all know, is statutorily prohibited from looking at policy questions—in order to question policy, but to see that the right judgments were arrived at in obtaining value for money. In the light of the recent discussions that have been held on this subject in relation to the Ministry of Defence, I am pleased that the system worked as it should and that, as in the past, the National Audit Office ultimately had access to Cabinet papers. This was not exceptional—the NAO has done it before—and the system worked as it should. That shows that the judgments that the National Audit Office reached, having had access to Cabinet papers, were the right ones. Because of that, and because of Andrew Likierman’s suitability, I am very happy to support the motion.

Chloe Smith: It is an honour to support the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on the motion to appoint Professor Sir Andrew Likierman as chair of the new National Audit Office. I should like to echo the tributes of other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), regarding the fine contribution that Professor Likierman has already made as shadow chairman of the National Audit Office and his qualifications for the role.
	Since becoming shadow chairman, Sir Andrew has done tremendous work to establish the shadow board as an effective and authoritative governance body. This has set the basis for the future as the NAO takes on its full responsibilities. As the House is aware, the new
	governance arrangements for the NAO were enacted following a report by the Public Accounts Commission in the previous Parliament. That report recommended that the NAO, led by the Comptroller and Auditor General, should remain the Government’s auditor, independent of Government and answerable directly to Parliament through the commission. The commission also recommended that the NAO should be a corporate body, with existence separate from, but providing resources and support to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	The new NAO will have a board with a majority of non-executives, including an independent non-executive chair, who will be a Crown appointment, appointed by the Crown in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor General will have a fixed 10-year term—previously it was unlimited—and remuneration of the CAG will be agreed by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, rather than being linked to permanent secretaries’ remuneration. The report also recommended that the NAO’s audit reports continue to be laid in Parliament, and that the Committee of Public Accounts should continue to hold scrutiny hearings on some of them.
	The report’s recommendations were accepted by the previous Government, and provision was included in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which received cross-party support in the Commons. As the House will be aware, those clauses were lost in the other place during the wash-up stage before the general election, but this year the Government included the provisions in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. The governance reforms envisaged in the provisions strengthen the independence and accountability of the Comptroller and Auditor General in holding the Government to account.
	These reforms are entirely in line with the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability in the public finances, including by implementing whole of Government accounts. As the right hon. Member for Barking noted, effective independent oversight of the efficiency of Government spending is especially important when public resources are under pressure, and these reforms are intended to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO can fulfil that role.
	I support the motion and Sir Andrew Likierman’s appointment as the first independent chairman of the new National Audit Office.
	Question put and agreed to.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

George Young: I beg to move,
	That Ms Angela Eagle be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in place of Hilary Benn, until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.
	The Speaker’s Committee for IPSA is a statutory Committee set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and its role and membership is determined by that statute. It has two key responsibilities: to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker following fair and open competition for the posts of chair and members of IPSA, and to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources. The Speaker’s Committee’s current membership includes you, Mr Speaker, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and me, by virtue of our offices. Its membership also includes five Members of Parliament appointed by the House and three lay members appointed by the House in January 2011.
	The motion was tabled at the request of the Opposition. It will remove the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) from the Committee and add the shadow Leader of the House in his place. This is a matter for the Labour party and the Government are happy to facilitate it. As a member of SCIPSA, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work on the Committee, including in some lively meetings under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker. I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), should the House agree to the motion, to the Committee. I know that she will add great value to our proceedings.
	I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Common European Sales Law

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
	That this House considers that the Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council to introduce a Common European Sales Law (European Union Document No. 15429/11 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in Chapter 5 of the Forty-Seventh Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 428-xlii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the application of principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
	I will start by making some general contextual comments. I am pleased that this debate has been called because the proposed common European sales law is important both politically and legally. I know that it is of interest to Parliament and the public.
	This debate makes use of article 6 of protocol 2 to the Lisbon treaty, the subsidiarity protocol, which enables national Parliaments to put forward a reasoned opinion challenging a proposal by the European Commission on the grounds that they do not consider that it complies with the principle of subsidiarity. I believe that this is the fourth time that this House has considered such a motion. The first three related to financial services and this is the first in the area of justice. I note with interest that a debate on the same proposal was held in the German Bundestag last week, where it was accepted unanimously that the proposal for the common European sales law was contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. I am sure that fellow member states and their Parliaments will listen with interest to what is discussed and concluded here today.
	I should make it clear at the outset that the drafting of a reasoned opinion is a matter for Parliament, not for the Government. The European Union treaties have given the role of the supervision of subsidiarity to national Parliaments. It is therefore Parliament’s task to decide whether to present such an opinion to the European Union institutions. I should also say that the Government are considering a report by the Procedure Committee relating to the handling of reasoned opinions such as this. I hope that the House will understand if I do not speculate on what the outcome of those considerations will be.
	Subsidiarity is a word that we hear much about when dealing with European legislative proposals. It may assist the House if I say a few words about it. The concept is defined in article 5 of the treaty on European Union:
	“in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”
	It follows that subsidiarity is a specific legal and political concept. In simple terms, it means that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens whom they affect, and that the European Union should act only when outcomes can be better achieved at European Union level. Subsidiarity is different from the principle
	of proportionality, under which any action taken by the European Union should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the stated objectives.
	Successive Governments have supported the principle of subsidiarity. I am told that the United Kingdom pushed for it to be strengthened in the Lisbon treaty. The treaty includes a requirement that all legislative proposals should include a statement making it possible to appraise their compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It also introduced the power for national Parliaments to transmit reasoned opinions relating to subsidiarity, such as that which we are debating today. The European institutions—the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament—are obliged to take account of all such opinions.
	Moreover, if one third of the national parliamentary chambers throughout the European Union submit such opinions, the Commission must review its proposal. I do not think that any proposal has yet been objected to by a third of the national parliamentary chambers. If that did happen, it would represent a powerful political signal, which the Commission would do well to heed. It cannot be denied that one third is a high threshold. To achieve it will require a great deal of co-ordination between national Parliaments. As I have said, this is a matter for Parliament and not for the Government. I can only encourage the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested parties in Parliament, both in this House and the other place, to make the best use of their contacts with other national Parliaments in this regard.

Stephen Phillips: Will the Minister give way?

Crispin Blunt: I would like to give my hon. and learned Friend the chance to make his substantive comments in the course of the debate and I will then reply. However, if it is a question on the point that I was making, I will of course give way.

Stephen Phillips: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he indicate for the House how many Parliaments, apart from the Westminster Parliament, have asked for a reasoned opinion to date?

Crispin Blunt: My hon. and learned Friend was unhappily absent at the beginning of my remarks, when I reported to the House that the Bundestag gave a unanimous opinion last week that this proposal was contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. I am not aware of any other parliamentary chambers that have undertaken to do so. To illustrate the difficulty of achieving the level of one third of chambers taking a view and reporting a reasoned opinion, the Bundesrat has not taken a view. Therefore, of the two German Chambers, only one, the Bundestag, has taken a view. Only half of the German Chambers have taken a view, whereas the hurdle that has to be achieved is a third of national parliamentary chambers. My hon. and learned Friend will understand that it is quite a hurdle in those circumstances. Of course, it is a matter for the other place whether it takes a view on this matter.
	You will be aware, Mr Speaker, from reading the Government’s explanatory memorandum on this proposal that, provided that it is demonstrated that the difference
	in national contract laws is a genuine obstacle to cross-border trade, the Government’s view is that the subsidiarity test is likely to be met. The Government do, however, share the European Scrutiny Committee’s concerns about the necessity for this proposal in the first place. We question whether an optional common European sales law or one with such a wide scope is the right way to address this issue. These matters will form part of the consultation that the Government plan to hold. I shall therefore listen to Members’ views with great interest.
	I will now turn to the substance of the proposed regulation. This proposal has a long history. The European Commission and the European Council have been engaged in the general issue of contract law for a decade or so. I believe that the European Parliament’s involvement stretches back even further. The European Union contract law project lay dormant for some time, but gained momentum again in July 2010 with the publication of a Commission green paper on options for progress towards an EU contract law for business and consumers.
	The green paper set out various options for reform, including to continue with the development of a legislators’ toolbox. That would provide a common frame of reference, drawing together the most common concepts and terms used in contract law, which would be the commonly agreed basis to be used by the authors of future European Union laws relating to contract law. The aim of that would be to reduce or remove the current differences and the difficulties that they cause. The green paper invited views on seven options, from a specific directive or a regulation providing an optional European Union-level regime, right through to a mandatory black letter European code of contract law. The conclusion of the Commission green paper’s analysis, and of views received on a feasibility study published by the expert group in May, have culminated in the proposed regulation for a common European sales law.
	More recently, the Commission’s proposal was published on 11 October. It contains a set of uniform contract law rules that parties to a contract could choose to govern their contract. The use of such rules would be optional, but that optional law would form part of the national law of each member state and could be used as an alternative to what is currently offered under national law. That alternative regime would be available for cross-border business-to-consumer and business-to-business contracts when at least one party was a small or medium-sized enterprise.
	Although the Government intend to consult widely on the detailed policy implications of the proposed regulation, our initial assessment indicates that it would be neither simple nor easy to use. Although it is designed to be free-standing, it remains unclear what relationship it would have with other Union laws such as the Rome I regulation. It also seems that a range of matters that could affect the legal relationship between the parties have not been addressed in the proposed regulation. That has the potential to undermine the aim of removing the need for businesses to incur transaction costs on legal advice on another country’s law.
	The scope of the proposal could prove difficult, with its wide application to business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts whether they are concluded by distance, away from business premises or on the premises. The Government are not sure whether such an all-
	encompassing regulation is the correct way to address the different problems that traders and consumers may experience. In addition, current arrangements already provide that any state’s law can be chosen as the law of contract. In that sense, a trader could already choose which law to apply to his or her contract, and in most cases that is likely to be their own. The anticipated net value of the regulation remains to be tested and quantified against the costs of introducing a new law.
	The Government are also concerned about the treaty base used in bringing the regulation forward. The proposed legal basis is article 114 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That basis is normally used for harmonising laws in order to further the establishment of the internal market. The Government have doubts about the appropriateness of that, particularly as most other optional instruments that operate in parallel to domestic law are brought forward on other legal bases.
	The Government have been working closely with interested parties through the process leading to the proposed regulation. Indications so far are that opinion is divided. Some interested parties see an optional contract law for cross-border sales as a potentially useful tool for aiding the internal market, but others see such a new law as risky, over-complex and unnecessary.
	The Government intend shortly to consult United Kingdom interests on the proposed regulation. The views received will be used to develop and inform the Government’s position on the likely impacts of such a regulation, as well as on any benefits or disadvantages that are likely to occur for the various sectors that it could affect. We will not form a concluded view on our approach to the proposal until after the consultation has been concluded and there has been proper time to analyse the results. For today, I am of course grateful for the chance offered by the debate to hear the specific concerns that Members may have.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. As he knows, the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusion is that the proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity. I heard what he said about the difference between the two chambers in Germany. We know that the Bundestag takes the same view as us, and the fact that the Bundesrat does not fails to alter the fact that there is a powerful reason for us to pursue the points that led to the reasoned opinion that we are submitting.
	Many organisations have been consulted or have offered evidence on the matter, and their evidence is very powerful from a practical point of view. I have in mind the evidence of Which?, Consumer Focus, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Law Society. It would be invidious to go through each of the objections and arguments that they have made, but in general there are questions about whether there is clear evidence that the regulation is needed and about legal uncertainty, cost and potential confusion.
	There is no doubt that throughout the whole business community, there is grave concern about the range and extent of such a provision. In a nutshell, the question whether there is compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is essentially one of practicality as much
	as of constitutional propriety. The whole object of subsidiarity is to determine whether a matter is better handled at national level than under the aegis of the European legal framework. It remains to be seen whether other national Parliaments enable us to reach the threshold necessary for the matter to be returned to the Commission, but all the evidence that we have received demonstrates that the UK should adopt the reasoned opinion and send it to the Presidents of the Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament before 12 December.
	All the arguments are set out in the papers that are in the Vote Office. As I said, I do not think it is necessary or desirable to take the House through every jot and tittle of them—they are so powerful that I really do not think there is any need for me to do so. I would, however, say that it is axiomatic that an optional sales law common to all member states is something that can be better achieved at EU level than at national level. However, that is to assume that the proposed common sales law is necessary and will produce clearer benefits by reason of its scale and effect than action by member states. Based on the evidence to which I have referred, the European Scrutiny Committee doubts whether either requirement has been met.
	In addition, the Committee finds that the Commission has again failed to prepare a detailed assessment, in accordance with article 5 of protocol 2 to the Lisbon treaty. That is a very important point. It makes it exceedingly difficult for national Parliaments to determine whether there has been compliance with the principles of subsidiarity within the eight-week period. We were greatly assisted in this case by the submissions that we received from the organisations in the UK to which I have referred. Where their concerns overlapped, we found that there was a convergence of views. That was particularly instructive and helpful to the Committee, and we are grateful for that. In fact, I would go further and say that I wish more business organisations would make submissions more frequently on many such matters that come before my Committee. It is one thing for us to form a judgment, but it is also extremely important to know that it is based on firm practical considerations.
	The Commission’s failure to provide a detailed statement amounts, in our view, to an infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in protocol 2. We therefore recommend that the House adopts a reasoned opinion to be sent to the Presidents of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament before the deadline of 12 December. We retain the draft regulation under scrutiny pending a further update on the negotiations, and we are particularly interested to hear the outcome of the discussions on the appropriate legal base. As far as we are concerned, the communication itself can be cleared from scrutiny.
	I therefore submit that the draft reasoned opinion of the House should be adhered to and submitted accordingly, and that we should do all in our power to get as much support as possible from other member states, because of the serious breaches of the procedural arrangements and because of the breach of the subsidiarity principle. I look to the Government to do that.

Tom Brake: I rise briefly to highlight some concerns with the proposals. The perspective of Which? and Consumer Focus is that the different contract laws do not stop consumers or businesses from cross-border trading to any significant degree. It is not clear that the proposal would lead to an expansion of such trade, and it could lead to greater complexity and therefore increase business transaction costs.
	There is no legal certainty that the measure would be applied uniformly across the EU. It therefore has the potential to create legal uncertainty and confusion for customers, and it would not provide them with choice, because they would continue to be limited to accepting the contract offered to them by the supplier.
	There are grave reservations in relation to the potential for the measure to lead to back-door harmonisation of contract law. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) had been in a position to stay for the whole debate, he too would have made those points.
	I understand the Government’s perspective of subsidiarity, but the measure is an optional change, not an imposed one. Can subsidiarity in all cases overrule something that is optional and not mandated? The Minister rightly said that the regulation would not be simple to use and that complexity is involved, but have the Government assessed whether the proposal is more complex than the current legislation? Do they recognise that the Federation of Small Businesses says that small businesses need to be able to afford to compete in different markets in the EU?
	The proposal raises many more questions than it resolves, and therefore a detailed and extensive consultation is required.

William Cash: I rise simply to say that the City of London corporation has also provided a method of objection and to add it to the other representative organisations I mentioned.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is some confusion here. I think the hon. Gentleman either thought or hoped he was intervening on the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but the latter is signalling that he has concluded his remarks. I am sure that that fact will be of close and abiding interest to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), knowing what a great interest he takes in the observations of other hon. Members.

Stephen Phillips: I rise to make a short contribution to the debate, and to make some of the points that were made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others on the European Scrutiny Committee by the City remembrancer of the City of London, who has provided us with a briefing that contains a number of salient observations on the measure, which are important for the House to consider in deciding whether the motion should carry.
	The first and most worrying of those observations—I attribute these views not at all to the City of London or the City remembrancer; these are my words—is that there is considerable concern that the measure is the
	thin end of a uniform contract wedge that is being deployed by the Commission in an attempt to undermine the universality of English contract law, which is used in transactions not only between businesses within the EU, but across the world, where, alongside New York law, it is the predominant way in which international trade is regulated. I should like to hear more from the Minister on that.
	Were there any doubt that the Commission has in mind that the proposed regulation is the thin end of a uniform contractual wedge, it would be removed by article 15, which makes clear that the Commission would be obliged to review the measure after five years,
	“taking account of…the need to extend the scope in relation to business-to-business contracts, market and technological developments in respect of digital content and future developments of the Union acquis.”
	Given that the Justice Commissioner has already indicated that he plans to announce consideration of a European common insurance law next year, there ought to be grave concern on both sides of the House that the measure is the first step in an attempt to impose upon this country a uniform European contract law. I suspect that many hon. Members would be extremely concerned about that.
	The second concern to which it is worth drawing the House’s attention is the speed with which the draft regulation was drawn up. It was drawn up in a very short period of some 11 months by a so-called expert group which, I must tell the House, consisted predominantly of academics. It consisted for the most part not of those who actually practise law or indeed of those who would have the option to use this contract law were it to be introduced. In those circumstances, if the proposals were to go ahead, there would, in my respectful view, need to be a much greater consideration of what practitioners have to say on the subject of contract law and the draft regulation, and a much greater consideration of what business wants.
	Those are two initial concerns about the regulation, but there are others. Essentially, the regulation would establish an optional contract law that would lie alongside national contract law, but that could cause conflict between almost identical contractual situations as they apply between those who are negotiating within the EU, and possibly even between those within member states. The position would essentially be that someone who selects the option of the EU contract law might gain greater rights than someone who does not do so—the latter, through the application of conflict of laws rules, would have the contract containing his rights and obligations subjected to some wholly different system of law. That must be a grave concern, because it could result—naturally—in different decisions being taken by national courts in relation to precisely the same facts, depending on which law applies. That might be acceptable when the laws that apply are of different nations, which would be selected pursuant to established conflict of laws rules, but it cannot, in my judgment, be acceptable when the laws in question are on the one hand common law, as in this country, and on the other hand an optional community contract law, both of which none the less hold sway in the same jurisdiction. That is therefore a very great reason why the measure is not in the interests of the City of London, or of this or any other European country.
	Establishing a new contract law—even one that has been written by a group of academics—is, moreover, destined to lead to much greater litigation, uncertainty, increased costs, and increased transactional costs, because there will be no established body of law and no binding juridical opinion by reference to which those who are obliged to be consulted on difficult legal problems arising out of contracts can form settled views as to the correct answer in respect of their clients’ rights, entitlements and obligations.
	Growing that body of law—it could grow only in this country, where we have a system of precedence—could take several decades. If small and medium-sized enterprises, and perhaps even larger businesses, adopted the optional contract law, their rights and obligations would necessarily be unclear during that time. That is not only most unsatisfactory from the perspective of those who seek to do business in international markets, but wholly unsatisfactory from the perspective of the development of the law.

William Cash: On the question of legal base, does my hon. and learned Friend recall that originally the Secretary of State for Justice took the view that he had doubts over whether article 114 was appropriate? There was then the question of whether article 352 might not be more appropriate. Unfortunately, because of the enactment of the European Union Act 2011, primary legislation had to be passed before the Government could give their consent to the adoption of the proposal on article 352. Therefore, there is a serious question over whether there has been complete compliance not only with the principle of subsidiarity but with the legal base.

Mr Speaker: The principle of subsidiarity is important, but there is also a very important principle of interventions, and that is brevity.

Stephen Phillips: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, brief or not. I will not fall into his elephant trap of discussing what precisely is necessary under the European Union Act 2011, but I will say that I agree with him. It is right that there is no justifiable legal base under article 114, not least because the European Court of Justice has itself made it clear that that article cannot be used for the harmonisation of laws within the European Union.
	I was on the point of saying that there is a real problem with running in parallel two systems of contract law, particularly where that might lead to different results and where one has not been the subject of extensive judicial consideration. In such a case, it is inevitable that there would be differences of opinion among those who are called on to provide advice on the rights, obligations and entitlements of parties to contracts, and they are the ones who are subject to this new system of optional contract law were it to be in place. For those reasons, it must be entirely right that we should not seek to accommodate the Commission’s proposals to have in place two parallel systems of contract law in this country. That would be detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and consumers and businesses all over the European Union. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to make those points as strongly as he can to his colleagues in Europe, and I make those points, albeit
	through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the other national Parliaments who really need to require the Commission to justify its proposals.

Robert Flello: This is not a new matter. In European Committee B, which met on 24 May, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) noted that European contract law had been more than 10 years in its formation. Indeed the Minister has referred to that again today. Despite the length of that period, the actual draft law has been put together in some haste.
	In the Committee, I raised a number of concerns and expressed the view that the Commission had not come up with any reliable evidence for its proposals; that many other barriers to trade need to be addressed in priority to this issue; and that adopting another set of contract rules was unnecessary and possibly harmful.
	The Committee was supportive of the toolbox approach, but not more. According to the Hansard report of that Committee, I said that I was concerned that the exercise on the Commission’s part, namely the Green Paper and the whole thrust of things, seemed to be a way of trying to push through option 4 instead of doing what it should be doing, which was putting together the toolbox. I, therefore, urged the Under-Secretary of State to go back to the Commission and make representations in the strongest terms to get things back on track and promote the toolbox and not the draft contract law. What has changed since May? Sadly, I think nothing positive has changed and so the Opposition agree that a reasoned opinion should be sent to the presidents of the European institutions, in effect, to reject the draft regulation.
	The draft European sales law has caused a great deal of concern with many individuals and organisations and little support appears forthcoming from any quarter. Let me be gently mischievous here and suggest that other than the Lord Chancellor—whose generally Europhile stance accords with that of his party—I am not aware of any quarter where this particular proposal has received any positive comments at all.
	The aim of the proposed regulation seems laudable enough. It is to reduce what the EU perceives as barriers to cross-border trade and thereby improve the ability of traders to exploit the Common Market and help consumers gain access to products across member states. That is all very laudable in theory, but let me explore that aim.
	The evidence base from the European Union seems flimsy to say the least. Evidence from UK representative organisations shows just how weak the EU research appears to be. The survey of the Federation of Small Businesses demonstrated that just 18% of its members thought that a European Union sales law would make their life easier, but that seems to me to be a very low figure given the aims of the regulation.
	The consumer organisation Which? opposes the regulation, citing that the proposed law would not contain a satisfactory level of consumer protection; that there would be a risk to the levels of consumer protection both cross-border and domestically; and that there would not be a resultant increase in cross-border trade to benefit consumers.
	That view is supported by various Eurobarometer and Flash Eurobarometer surveys that show fairly comprehensively that the problem is not an absence of a common EU sales contract. Consumer Focus does not support the Commission’s proposals because of insufficient evidence of need, legal uncertainty and cost. We know, therefore, that there is no proven case for bringing in this regulation.
	Let me now turn to the issue that has vexed many commentators and is the basis of the reasoned opinion—subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is crucial, and I will not repeat the Minister’s explanation of this term, which was very good. As I have said, the evidence from the Commission is poor, and that lack of evidence in itself breaches the requirements of article 5 of protocol 2 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. As well as breaching the procedural requirements, the proposed regulation breaches the principle of subsidiarity. We are clearly on unsound foundations when looking at this proposed regulation and we all know what happens, especially in a European context, when things are built on insufficient foundations.
	I hope that other Parliaments take a similar view and that they hear the views expressed today. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will actively seek to persuade other European Union member Parliaments that they too should approach this matter in a similar way?
	I could explore the issues around legal complexity and legal uncertainty. I could elaborate on the impact on domestic contract law where cross-border trading puts domestic traders at a competitive disadvantage. I could raise the damage that may arise to consumer rights from bringing in this proposed EU sales law, which would actually set back the improvements that we have seen. However, given that the House seems to be unanimous in wishing to see this draft regulation sent back to the European institutions with the reasoned opinion opposing it, I am content to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
	In closing, may I commend those who have served on European Committee B and urge the Government to apply pressure at a European level—perhaps with the support of others in Europe—to ensure that we do not have to consider poorly evidenced proposals again? On that basis, let me say I do no wish to delay the House any further or object to this motion.

Crispin Blunt: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me reply to the points raised in the course of this debate. I have taken careful note of all the points raised and they will of course further guide our work as we consult on this proposal in the next phase. As the House is aware we will have a proper public consultation on the proposed regulation in the new year. I know, however, that our general approach to this dossier has to date been supported by the scrutiny Committees in both Houses.
	Let me pick up the particular points that have been made this afternoon. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his Committee for the work that they have done on this instrument. I particularly welcome his contribution to the debate
	today. He drew attention to the contributions that have already been made by Consumer Focus, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Law Society. I want to answer the Opposition spokesman’s characterisation of the position—he said that absolutely no one out there thinks there is any merit in this measure apart from the Lord Chancellor—which is wrong on both counts. However, I will return to that and correct him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a substantive point in an intervention on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who confirmed that he was entirely right to say that if article 352 were used, the European Union Act 2011 would require an Act of Parliament before a Minister could agree to it. The legal base is therefore important, and I have made clear the Government’s views, including our doubts about whether article 114 applies, which is an entirely open question.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked whether the Government had assessed whether the new law would be more complex than that which currently exists, whether businesses could choose to opt into the process and whether that would leave them in a better position. There is a concern that having two alternative regimes could lead to confusion. It might also be too complex for many consumer transactions. The existing common law emphasises certainty—a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—but the law proposed in this case does not appear to have that emphasis. Again, this is an area where we need detailed legal analysis, which is ongoing. We will consider the views of interested parties, many of whom have significant expertise in this area.
	That is an appropriate note on which to turn to my hon. and learned Friend. He drew on the remarks of the Remembrancer of the City of London, who has suggested that the proposed measure might be the thin end of a wedge intended to introduce European contract law, thereby undermining the universality of English contract law. It is important to draw attention today—when Her Majesty is opening the Rolls building, a new and impressive commercial court—to the extremely extensive service that the legal profession in London provides to the entire world of commerce. That point ought to be given importance in our consideration of this matter.
	As to whether this measure is the thin end of the contract wedge, I should point out that the scope of the draft regulation has been narrowed since the initial discussions began some years ago. The proposal that we are discussing covers the sale of goods and does not extend more widely into contract law. We would have to address any such proposals carefully, and will watch extremely closely if any proposals are made to widen the scope. Each will be considered on its merits. I can also reassure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who spoke for the Opposition, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I—and, indeed, the whole of Her Majesty’s Government—see no need for a general system of European contract law.
	The tenor of the argument produced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was extremely clear, as was the expertise that he used to make it. He made a powerful point about the potential for increased transactional costs, not least
	because lawyers would face considerable difficulties in giving clear advice to small and medium-sized enterprises. He very properly pointed out to the House that if the measure were introduced, the cost of growing case law in this area to provide the necessary certainty would lead to a process that might take decades. The businesses using this form of law would bear the costs, as they would find out—either to their cost or otherwise—through the legal process of testing its bounds.
	Finally, let me repeat, so as to make it perfectly clear, that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South wholly misrepresented the views of the Lord Chancellor. [ Interruption. ] I am grateful to hear the hon. Gentleman’s sedentary reassurances on that point, but it would be a service to the House if in future he did not seek to misrepresent positions that he plainly does not appreciate or understand. He then said that absolutely nobody was in any way positive about this measure. He was wrong about that as well.

Robert Flello: I am sure that the Minister normally follows every word I say very closely, but sadly he must have been distracted when I said that there was very little support outside. I did not say that there was no support, because the Federation of Small Businesses has said that it supports the measure. However, I reiterate the point that only 18% of people think that it would make a difference.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for that intervention, because I had misheard the hon. Gentleman and would not want to mischaracterise his arguments. He makes the point that I was coming to, which is that the Federation of Small Businesses says in its submission that it sees an argument in principle for the measure, a point that was reflected in what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said. In a sense, it is axiomatic that, at the European level, there would be a case for such a measure. The FSB has made it clear that its support for a common European sales law is dependent on its being clear and simple for small and medium-sized enterprises to use, without placing unreasonable burdens on business. We will look closely at those details in the consultation.
	I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that any development in the Government’s position on the dossier will be made on the basis of good evidence of need and a robust analysis of the impacts. The Government will pay particular consideration to whether the proposed regulation is a proportionate response to the problems envisaged by the Commission, whether that response complies with subsidiarity and whether the treaty base is appropriate for the measures proposed. We will work with all those most affected by the change, engaging with business and consumer groups in particular. I hope and expect that we will incorporate contributions from Governments in other member states and from the European Parliament.
	Let me answer the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who suggested that Her Majesty’s Government should go around trying to encourage Parliaments in other member states to take an interest. We do not think it proper for Her Majesty’s Government to do that. Indeed, he will have heard the suggestion in my opening remarks to the effect that parliamentary groups and authorities should take up the challenge that he has thrown down to them. Given the law of
	unintended consequences, I fear that if the Government tried to do that, it might be less convincing than fellow parliamentarians trying to act on other national Parliaments, which might be rather more effective.

Henry Smith: It is indeed important that our Parliament should liaise with EU Parliaments on that point. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting some Danish parliamentarians—my counterparts on their equivalent to the European Scrutiny Committee—who are also opposed to this European measure. It is important that those representations are made through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to other European Assemblies.

Crispin Blunt: I think you have just had a request for action, Mr Deputy Speaker, from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I commend the work done by members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who have done a particularly good job here. We are going to work with Members here and in the other place and, of course, with the European Scrutiny Committee in taking forward work in this area.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House considers that the Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council to introduce a Common European Sales Law (European Union Document No. 15429/11 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in Chapter 5 of the Forty-Seventh Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 428-xlii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the application of principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amende d

Clause 3
	 — 
	Powers exercisable by police civilians and accredited persons

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 5.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments 6, 8, 7, 9 to 14, 21 and 35 to 39.

Christopher Chope: This Bill has been before the House for four years. Earlier this year, it went through an opposed Bill Committee and as a result of the diligent work of its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and its members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), some of the clauses that were a cause of concern on Second Reading were removed. Many of those clauses were the subject of petitions.
	Sadly, however—this is no criticism of the opposed Bill Committee—sufficient consideration was not given to the clauses that were unopposed in the sense that they were not the subject of petitions. It is incumbent on us as legislators to assure ourselves that we are satisfied with the contents of these private Bills and that those contents are consistent with the principles that we apply to our law in general. What the Bill tries to do—this is why it is a private Bill—is to create a separate legal regime among the 33 London authorities or in certain circumstances just within the City of Westminster. As I say, it is incumbent on us to pay careful attention to the detail. That applies particularly to the powers relating to penalty charges, enforcement and recovery of costs—the powers that are dealt with in this group of amendments.
	Amendment 5 to clause 3 would insert after “payable” in line 14 of page 3
	“by the person being served”.
	The fact that that phrase is omitted from the Bill exemplifies what I would describe as the sloppy, haphazard drafting, which often happens with private Bills. I think that when a private Bill has been before Parliament for four years, it should have been tidied up. Clause 3(1) reads at the moment:
	“Where a designation order under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 applies paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act…to any person, that person shall have the power of a borough council to serve a penalty charge notice…where he has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable to the borough council”.
	It does not say that he has to believe that the penalty charge notice is payable by the person on whom the notice is being served. It seems to me that that is pretty basic material, and that we should not have people going around serving penalty charge notices on people they do not believe to be the persons to whom the penalty charge applies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is it really the case that the Bill as drafted means that these officers could go around willy-nilly serving charges on people who had nothing to do with the penalty committed? Is my hon. Friend not absolutely right to say that this shows the shoddy drafting of the legislation?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that that would be the consequence and that it indicates the shoddy drafting. One has to ask why the provision is so broad brush. That is why I tabled amendment 5. It is only a small amendment; it does not address all that I think is wrong with clause 3, but it would at least remove part of the wide ambit and prevent people who have not been the subject of penalty charges from being served with penalty charge notices. One might ask whether it really matters if penalty notices are served on people who should not be served with them. It does if we also look at clause 4. If the person being served with a penalty charge notice to which he should not be subject, as he has been wrongly accused of having liability for it, is asked to give his name and address and refuses to do so, he then becomes under clause 4 a criminal and is liable to a summary fine on strict liability of up to a £1,000.

Greg Knight: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying this, but could it not be argued that his amendment, too, is guilty of sloppy drafting? What would happen if his amendment were accepted and the responsibility belonged to a body corporate? Surely it would mean that the person serving the notice could not hand it to a director, but would have to post it or deliver it to the company’s registered office. That is what would happen if my hon. Friend’s amendment were accepted.

Christopher Chope: If a body corporate were liable for the penalty charge, it could be served on its director. My right hon. Friend, who will have looked assiduously at the Bill, will know that there are references in clause 20 to the liability of directors for offences committed by a body corporate. I am not sure, therefore, that my amendment would be out of order in that sense. I think it would improve the Bill, given that the issue of corporate liability is covered by clause 20. Although I say it myself, I believe that amendment 5 will bring about a modest improvement in the drafting.
	Amendment 6 is the second in the group; it would leave out subsection (2) of clause 3. That subsection talks about giving these powers, to which I have already referred, not just to the police or police community support officers, but to an “accredited person”. It proposes to make these significant powers available to anybody who is an accredited person. My amendment would leave out the provision to enable those accredited people to have the powers given to PCSOs.
	Amendment 7 would likewise leave out subsection (3), which is consequential, as it states:
	“An accreditation may only specify that subsection (2) applies to an accredited person”
	and so forth. That will be taken out, so that clause 3 would not apply to accredited persons.

David Nuttall: Can my hon. Friend explain who accredits those persons? How do they become accredited?

Christopher Chope: That is a very good question, but it is probable that only the promoters of the Bill can answer it definitively. It seems to be a rather murky area. I do not think that we should build up a bureaucracy in this country in which a lot of officials are going around with powers to ask people for their names and addresses and to ensure, if they refuse to give them, that they are subject to criminal penalties including fines of up to £1,000, when it is not known who those officials are. There will be plenty of opportunities for bluff and bluster. Who will do the accrediting, how will those who do the accrediting be made accountable, and who will know who they are? I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), will be able to respond to those and other questions, because I understand that there is a fair amount of support among the Bill’s supporters for an extension of the powers to accredited people.
	I think that the answer to my hon. Friend’s specific question can be found in the schedule to the Police Reform Act 2002 that contains definitions relating to accredited persons. However, I must admit that the interaction between those definitions and what is in the Bill is not exactly as plain as a pikestaff to me.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again. He is being very generous.
	We all know that a police officer who is involved in the issuing of a fixed penalty ticket will have been trained in the rules of evidence, and will know that the starting point should be a presumption of innocence. What assurances does the Bill give us that an accredited person will have been given similar training in our law? Does it contain any provision to prevent a local authority from putting an accredited person on a pay scale enabling that person to receive a bonus based on the number of tickets that he or she issues? In other words, might the accredited person have a vested interest in giving out tickets willy-nilly, even when no offence had been committed?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful point. There is evidence that local authorities have given just such financial incentives to their officials, based on the number of people to whom they can issue tickets for offences, or alleged offences. The Bill would give those same officials an additional power to issue penalty notices.
	One of the weakest parts of the “accredited person” concept, which does not apply under the present law, is that someone who declined to give his name and address to an accredited person would be guilty prima facie of an offence, but the accredited person himself would have no power of arrest. What would he do then? Would he just wait there? If he were a police community support officer, he would be able to ask the person to wait for up to half an hour for a police officer to arrive, and the police officer could exercise his own power to arrest the person concerned for not having given his name and address. However, no such power extends to accredited persons. This provision would not work in practice, and I do not think that it has been thought through by the promoters.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Perhaps he could answer two questions. First, will the accredited people have to wear a uniform of any kind? I wondered whether they might wear bowler hats, for instance, so that it would be clear that they were from the council—proper, thoroughgoing bureaucrats. Secondly, would an accredited person who used his bowler hat to detain someone whose name he wanted be potentially guilty of false arrest?

Christopher Chope: The answer to my hon. Friend’s second question is yes. As for what uniform would be appropriate, I think that there is much to be said for requiring the accredited people to wear bowler hats, because they could be easily identified. People would know when an accredited person was approaching, and would be able to scarper. There is a lot of common sense in that suggestion from my hon. Friend. A better solution, however, would be not allowing the Bill to extend the power to accredited persons in the first place.
	Amendment 8 mirrors amendment 5, again proposing the insertion after the word “payable” the words
	“by the person being served”.
	I do not think that I need go into it further.

Philip Davies: Why not?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sedentary intervention, because it has given me an opportunity to welcome him to the Chamber. Unusually for him, he has been a bit late in arriving. I am afraid that he will have to look at the Official Report to find out what I said in support of amendment 5.
	Amendment 9 proposes that clause 4 should be left out completely. Clause 4 relates to the power to require names and addresses. This goes to the heart of the whole issue of civil liberties. Increasingly in this country, we are seeing a departure from the principle that people cannot be required to give their details to anyone who comes up to them and says, “I require your name and address.”
	In preparation for the debate, I looked at a website called freeBEAGLES, which provides “legal advice for activists” and includes some helpful advice on when people are and are not required to give their details. For instance, it states:
	“Other than under road traffic and anti-social behaviour legislation, you do not commit an offence in English law by refusing to give your name and address to the police.”
	The Bill refers not to the police but to accredited people and police civilians. The advice continues:
	“However there are certain situations where the police may arrest you if they cannot establish your name and address”
	—Members should note that it is the police who can do the arresting—
	“and if you are arrested and charged with an offence you will be unlikely to be granted bail unless they can establish these details.”
	It adds that the general principle
	“is that you never have to give your name and address to the police prior to arrest”
	unless
	“the police reasonably suspect you of a non-arrestable offence, and require your name and address for the service of a summons …where you are the driver of a vehicle…where the police say they suspect you of ‘anti-social behaviour’.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend explain how this will work in practice? If someone who is asked for his name and address by a representative from the council makes up a name and address, what mechanism will the council have to check the information and establish whether it was genuine?

Christopher Chope: At present, a council officer has no more power than any other individual. Let me cite a constituency case. Someone with a shopping trolley ran into and damaged a car belonging to one of my constituents in Christchurch. My constituent saw that the trolley had dented the car, but the person who had been pushing it then got into her own car and drove away. My constituent tried to identify the person by asking the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for details of the registered keeper of the vehicle. The DVLA could not give her the details, however, because no criminal offence had been committed. It might have been accidental criminal damage, but it was a civil matter and therefore the DVLA could not release the details that would have enabled her to bring a civil action against the individual.
	That is similar to the situation before us: if somebody commits a civil offence but their identity cannot be ascertained or they were not photographed, hard luck! Nothing can be done about it. Obviously if the person is driving a vehicle, specific laws apply requiring them to give their name and address to the police. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) looks a bit perplexed and disappointed, but if he analyses the matter, I am sure that he would agree that it would be wrong to allow people to make accusations and then immediately, on the back of those accusations, require people to give their names and addresses, and to back that up with criminal sanctions for failure to give either a name and address or an accurate name and address.

Philip Davies: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—I take his point and I support his amendment—but there is one thing that I still do not understand. The clause that he wants to delete states that someone
	“commits an offence if…he gives a false or inaccurate name or address”,
	and would be liable to conviction and a fine. If his amendment is not accepted and someone gives a false name and address, how on earth would they be found out in order for a fine to be imposed?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point that the sponsor of the Bill may wish to address later.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to keep on interrupting my hon. Friend, but his speech is so compelling and raises so many fascinating aspects of each clause. If councils can find out people’s names and addresses, would they need a gigantic and expensive national database of names and addresses? If so, who would pay for it—Westminster city council or Her Majesty’s Government?

Christopher Chope: I hope neither, but my hon. Friend is right that as sure as night follows day, what follows from this sort of power is the establishment of databases. That is very sinister.

Mark Field: I sympathise extensively with what my hon. Friend says about the civil liberties issues, but on this specific matter I suspect that the official concerned would have computer
	access to the electoral register and could therefore make at least a cursory check, although that might not necessarily resolve the matter. Is his concern—it is a relatively valid one, and I would be interested to hear what the promoters think—that were clause 4 to be deleted, law-abiding citizens would find themselves subject to the penalties under clause 3, while less law-abiding citizens would get away scot-free? In other words, there would be a strong disincentive for those willing to play by the rules, while others would find a way of avoiding the consequences. Although I accept his civil liberties argument, surely there is a concern that many pedlars of no fixed abode, or of an abode many miles away, could get away with such things more easily than others.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend almost answered his own point in his preamble, when he said that this was a civil liberties issue. I think that he and I agree. If there is a civil liberties issue, on the whole our instinct is to come down on the side of maintaining the civil liberty rather than giving an arbitrary power to an official to intervene—a power that might be subject to abuse or result in oppression, and which would certainly undermine the long-standing principle in this country that people are not required to give their name and address to any Tom, Dick and Harry whom they happen to meet in the street.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), will my hon. Friend explain how somebody of no fixed abode could give a false address? If someone does not have an address, they cannot give either a right one or a wrong one. Would they be penalised simply for being of no fixed abode?

Christopher Chope: Again, my hon. Friend is spot on. I am not sure whether the promoters have thought about that. It seems that if someone gave their name but could not give an address—because they did not have one—they would automatically be guilty of failing to supply a name and address, if there were not the defence of reasonable excuse, so they could be penalised merely for being itinerant or vagrant. This is another example of the law of unintended consequences that so often applies to private Bills that have not been thought through properly.

Philip Davies: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is right: the officials would probably use the electoral register to check the names and addresses that people give. Would my hon. Friend agree, though, that there are a multitude of reasons why somebody’s name might not yet be on the electoral register at a particular address, so that does not mean that they have given a false name and address? The register may not yet have been updated. Would it not be worrying if local officials were handing out fixed penalty notices or fines on the basis of who is on the electoral register?

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend, but this opens up a much larger debate that we will not go into now—the whole question of the electoral register and the proposed changes to it. The Government are thinking
	of effectively making filling in the registration form voluntary. The powers in the Bill, coupled with people’s freedom to decide whether to put their name on the electoral register, could result in a significant reduction in the number of people choosing to do so.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech, but could he deal with a point that we have not yet touched upon? What about cases in which a visitor to this country from abroad, who may have no knowledge of our procedures, gives a foreign address that cannot be checked against the electoral register?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend cites another good example. Again, the conscientious law-abiding citizen could find himself penalised, while an irresponsible person from overseas might get away scot-free. That will create increasing resentment. There is already enough resentment in this country against some foreigners, and we do not want to do anything that will increase that resentment.

Philip Davies: If a constituent of mine, confident that they did not have to give their name and address to a local council official in Shipley, came down to London and was asked by a council official to give their name and address, they would reasonably expect the same rules to apply in London. Would it not be perverse were they found to be breaking the law because of some rather officious rule introduced in London that did not apply in any other part of the country?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is on to a really important point: if we are to change the balance between officialdom and civil liberties, it should be done nationally rather than on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, which could lead to laws in London being different from those in Shipley—different, indeed, from those anywhere else outside London.
	It should be for Home Office Ministers to come forward with these proposals, if they think it reasonable to extend such powers to councils in the way suggested in the Bill, but they manifestly have not done so; there have been extensions, but nothing in this area, despite the fact that the Bill was printed back in 2007. The Government have not chosen to extend these powers to police community support officer and others, or to extend officials’ ability to require names and addresses nationally. Implicit in that is that the Government would not support such an extension of restrictions on civil liberties. If they do not support such restrictions on civil liberties nationally, why should they support them in London?

Greg Knight: Is the following statement an accurate précis of the situation: my hon. Friend’s amendments are an attempt to thwart the promoters of the Bill who are seeking to decriminalise a number of offences and to replace them with a far more draconian council-operated system?

Christopher Chope: Yes. Over time, offences have been decriminalised, and when I was a Transport Minister I supported the decriminalising of offences, but I never had in mind that that would be coupled with extending the powers of the police to deal with people such as those who do not give their name and address, and
	there are not as strong safeguards in respect of officials as there are for police officers.
	The income or yield from decriminalised offences goes straight into the coffers of the local authorities, and local authorities cannot expect to have it both ways. They cannot expect both to receive all that money and to have the powers of the police given to their officials. My right hon. Friend therefore highlights a key issue.
	We must remember that over time the Cities of London and Westminster and the London local authorities have salami-sliced the powers and rights of individual citizens in favour of bureaucratic local government. If this Bill is passed unamended, it will be argued that that trend should be extended, yet this Bill will not have been subjected to the same degree of parliamentary scrutiny as a Public Bill.

Greg Knight: Is there any popular support for this measure? A number of colleagues representing London constituencies are present, but not a single Opposition Back Bencher is in the Chamber. It does not seem to me that there is popular demand for this measure. I can understand why money-grubbing council officers might want this matter to proceed, but do the public?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It certainly appears that the public’s representatives are not keen on this matter. Although I have not checked the No. 10 website to see whether there is an online petition with hundreds or thousands of signatures in support of this Bill, I suspect not, and I think we would have been told about it if there was. The Bill’s passage through this House has not yet concluded, however, so it is still open to somebody to start an online petition in support of it, and against today’s amendments.

Mark Field: I have some sympathy with the view that certain parts of the country should not have an entirely different regime, and I share many of my hon. Friend’s concerns about council or local authority officers having these powers—although I am a big supporter of the two London local authorities in my constituency. However, I do not think he can legitimately argue that there has not been an opportunity to scrutinise this Bill properly, as it has had far more scrutiny than any Public Bill would normally receive, not least over the past four years as it has slowly made its way through the House and the other place.
	Does my hon. Friend also recognise that there are differences between London and, for instance, the leafy parts of Christchurch that he represents in sunny Dorset? There is a huge mass of humanity in London, particularly in the centre of the metropolis, and that gives rise to at least the idea that there should be a slightly different regime for some public order and health and safety matters compared with those for the wide acres of much of the rest of England. If we believe in localism, as I hope many of us do, there is a place for having somewhat different regimes of bylaws, and I suspect they would be understood by many people who visit central London even from faraway places such as Shipley, Bury North or East Yorkshire.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is doing a great job in defending his local authorities, and I hope that as a result he will in due course be granted the freedoms of his boroughs, if that has not already happened. I accept what he says about localism and about London, especially parts of central London, being different in character from other parts of the country, but I do not believe that we should have one regime of civil liberties in London and another elsewhere. If that were the case, we could, for instance, introduce much more draconian laws for people causing trouble or holding demonstrations in London. Nobody has yet suggested we should have a differential criminal law relating to where an offence takes place, yet that is what we are building up to under this decriminalised regime of law. It will result in alternative sets of laws applying to London as against the rest of the country.
	I argued that point when we were discussing various pedlars Bills. Pedlars travelling across the country want the certainty of knowing what the law is; they do not want different laws in different parts of the country. That argument applies even more strongly in the context of whether someone has the right to ask for our name and address and whether we will be subject to a criminal penalty if we refuse to give that information.
	Clauses 3 and 4 address important matters of principle, and amendment 10 seeks to alter clause 4 as follows:
	“leave out ‘a community support officer or an accredited person’ and insert ‘or a community support officer’.”
	Amendments 11, 12 and 13 address the same theme, and seek to remove from clause 4 powers relating to accredited persons and to confine them to police community support officers. The reasoning behind that is the same as the reasoning I articulated in respect of the amendments to clause 3.

Greg Knight: As ignorance of the law is not a defence, if these amendments are not accepted by the Bill’s promoters, is there not a case for requiring details of this different regime to be included in every tourist guide to London?

Christopher Chope: I do not want to advertise, but I agree that readers of tourist guides such as those produced by Lonely Planet and Rough Guides might find it useful to know about such penalty regimes. I am sure that if this legislation is put on to the statute book in its current form the editors of those books will want to ensure they are up to date in respect of the fact that there are fewer civil liberties in London than in other parts of the country, as visitors may wish to steer clear of London in order to enjoy the full range of English freedoms outside London. Those are important points.

Philip Davies: In respect of this group of amendments, instead of simply restricting the provision so it applies to community support officers and not the accredited persons of the county, would it not be better to delete it entirely, because if it applied solely to community support officers, councils would be for ever tying up their time by ringing them up to ask them to come and carry out these functions, when the public want community support officers to be a visible police presence on the ground deterring proper crime?

Christopher Chope: I agree, which is why I have tabled amendment 9 seeking to leave out clause 4 entirely. I have provided an alternative solution so that if we cannot leave out the whole of clause 4 we can at least
	leave out the part of it relating to accredited persons. Fortunately, both amendments have been selected for debate by the Chairman of Ways and Means, so it is up to the House to decide whether it prefers the entire removal of clause 4 or a modified version of it deleting the reference to the accredited persons.

Philip Davies: Has my hon. Friend any idea how often these provisions would be enforced, if his amendments were not accepted? How many times would local authorities expect to be demanding somebody’s name and address? It would be nice to know how much time our PCSOs would be expected to give to pursue this line of inquiry on behalf of local authorities.

Christopher Chope: Again, that is a very important point. On a Bill such as this, we do not need to have any cost-benefit analysis or any financial memorandum setting out what the costs are going to be, but I imagine that the Bill’s promoters are discussing the matter with their local authorities and that elected representatives in London are conscious of that fact.
	On the quantity issue, I know that I speak on behalf of lots of members of the Government—the leader of the other place and others—who have spoken out strongly against Westminster city council’s proposed extension of restrictions on street parking on Sundays. If that goes ahead, we can expect that it will result in many more fixed penalty notices as people are caught unawares, and that in due course will result in more of these notices being served in the way described in clauses 3 and 4, whether or not by accredited people or community support officers. It is likely that there will be an increase in the bureaucracy and the activity of unelected officials, and a consequent diminution in the civil liberties of the ordinary citizens.

David Nuttall: On amendment 10, is there not a danger that there would be an expectation, in these straitened times, of these accredited persons covering their salaries by issuing penalty notices?

Christopher Chope: That is an important point, because most borough councils are saying that they are short of funds and will want to ensure that these accredited people at least cover their costs. In order to do that, these authorities may well give these people incentives to ensure that they get sufficient income for their activity in any tour of duty. So that is another serious problem. As far as I am aware, we have never had a system in this country where police officers are incentivised for the number of arrests they make, but it seems that people are being incentivised for the number of civil offences they can detect.

Mark Field: Although I very much understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on incentivisation, I should put the following point on the record: Westminster city council has often been accused of incentive schemes for its parking attendants, but it is the case, and has been expressly so over past four years at least, that there is no such incentive scheme. In other words, traffic wardens do not have any sort of quota or incentive to issue tickets, and one very much hopes that a similar regime would apply to offences under this Bill.

Christopher Chope: Amendment 14 is, again, a consequential amendment relating to the need to remove references to an “accredited person”. Amendment 21 deals with a different part of the Bill, but again no explanation is given as to why it is thought necessary to include the change being made in the Bill. The explanatory notes state:
	“Clause 8 amends the City of Westminster Act 1996 which provides Westminster City Council with enhanced enforcement powers in relation to unlicensed sex establishments. The first amendment is a minor typographical amendment and the second amends section 8 of the 1996 Act, which relates to the service of notices. Under section 8, if notices under the Act are to be served by post, then they have to be served by registered post or the recorded delivery service. The amendments would enable notices to be served by ordinary post.”
	Surely it is important that the notices should be served by registered post or recorded delivery, because that means there is a tracking service and Westminster city council will know whether or not the notices have been properly served. The idea is that the notices should be sent by what is described in the explanatory notes as “ordinary post”, but that is becoming very much below par for many people, as it is increasingly unreliable. Are we really saying that delivering a letter with someone’s name on it to a block of flats is going to count as proper service in respect of the enforcement powers in clause 8? Nowhere is it explained why it would be fair, reasonable or equitable to change the long-established way of sending out such notices, which is by recorded delivery or registered post. Apart from anything else, some of us are keen to encourage Royal Mail and give it income, and this proposal would deprive it of income that it is currently able to obtain from such notices being sent by recorded delivery or registered post. The case for this change is just not made, so my amendment 21 would remove subsections (3) and (4) from clause 8.

Philip Davies: May I tap into my hon. Friend’s legal expertise, because his amendment could well be very helpful to Westminster city council? What would happen if something was sent out by ordinary post and the intended recipient simply said that they did not receive it, whether or not that was the case? Would that nullify the provisions detailed in that letter? Perhaps he knows whether or not that would make a difference.

Christopher Chope: Again, I do not purport to be an expert on this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green may wish to respond on that matter when winding up this debate. The explanatory notes are totally silent on this issue and to obtain the right answer one would need to have a greater knowledge than I have on the enforcement powers in relation to unlicensed sex establishments in the City of Westminster.
	I have almost got to the end of this group, but I shall now deal with amendments 35 to 39 to clauses 18 and 20. I find clause 18 to be particularly offensive, because it creates a new criminal offence, stating:
	“Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
	In other words, they would be subject to a fine of up to £1,000. There used to be an offence on the statute book of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, and there probably still is. In the days when I used
	to practise a bit in the criminal courts as a barrister, what one might describe as an “over-enthusiastic” or “over-zealous” police officer might often throw in a couple of charges of obstruction in the execution of duty to press a point home against a hapless defendant. If that was happening with the police, how much more dangerous is it for civil liberties for the authorised officer to be able to say, “You’ve obstructed me, so I will make sure you get a £1,000 fine”? The decision about what the obstruction would be and so on would be left to the officer, and I think that goes far too far.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Adding up all these fines, there seems to be £1,000 under clause 18 and another £1,000 under clause 4. Does my hon. Friend think that these councils are very hard up?

Christopher Chope: That might be the situation. They seem just to have gone for level 3 fines, which are a maximum of £1,000, but there is no explanation for choosing that penalty, so I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s point, I am afraid.
	The provision on the obstruction of authorised officers goes far too far, giving rise to the creation of an inappropriate criminal penalty.

Philip Davies: The clause actually refers to somebody who
	“intentionally obstructs any authorised officer”.
	Has my hon. Friend any idea what constitutes an intentional obstruction and what might be termed an unintentional obstruction?

Christopher Chope: Exactly. To go back to the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), somebody who sees the authorised officer with a bowler hat and heads off in the opposite direction might be regarded as intentionally obstructing the officer. Who knows? If we are going to create new offences, it is important that they should be very tightly drawn so that they can be clearly understood. The offence in the Bill is wide and vague and therefore oppressive and that is why I find it particularly offensive.
	I was amazed to see the wide terms in which clause 20 has been drafted. Without taking up too much of the House’s time, it is worth spelling out exactly what it says. It states:
	“Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent”,
	we can understand that,
	“or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director”,
	again, we can understand the reference to a director,
	“manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of the offence.”
	Subsection (2) states:
	“Where the affairs of the body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) above shall apply to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.”
	If the clause was the result of a competition among law students to see who could draft the most unreasonably
	wide new criminal sanctions against corporate bodies, the person who drafted this would probably get a capital alpha. It is drawn so widely and so unreasonably that, I would submit, it cannot have been analysed properly. I cannot believe that the promoters of the Bill really want the clause to be in the condition it is in at the moment.

Philip Davies: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is not only unreasonable but totally and utterly ridiculous. Can he offer any suggestion at all as to why the Bill and the clause specifically pick on secretaries? I can imagine that if someone was particularly illiberal, as the people promoting the Bill appear to be, they might want to pick on directors and managers—I can see why they would be the obvious target for people who wanted to go down this illiberal route—but can my hon. Friend think of any reason whatsoever why anybody would reasonably want to attack secretaries in particular?

Christopher Chope: I can think of all sorts of reasons, but I do not necessarily want to share them with the House in response to my hon. Friend’s intervention. I would not say, as my hon. Friend did, that it would be reasonable to include a manager. A director of a company or organisation has a particular responsibility and although it might be over the top to extend the provision to them, I thought the best thing to do was to try to limit the corporate liability to a director who committed an offence directly.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might have been better if the clause, rather than using the word “secretary”, had referred to “company secretary”, which is definable in law?

Christopher Chope: That would have been an improvement, but I hope that my hon. Friend will think it better to support my amendment, which effectively removes any references to managers, secretaries, other officers or any person purporting to act in such a capacity.
	I have introduced as briefly as I could some of the reasoning behind my amendments, which have been grouped together. I would like to tell hon. Members who have been following this debate—the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) has been sitting patiently on the Opposition Front Bench and will, I hope, participate—that at about 1 o’clock, when it looked as though this business would start at nearer 4 o’clock rather than 10 minutes to 2, I received a phone call from the counsel acting on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I needed to sit down at this point, because I was told that some of my amendments would be acceptable to the promoters.
	In anticipation of the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green will make to this debate, perhaps I can explain to the House my understanding—and he can correct me if I am wrong—of the amendments that the promoters will be willing to accept in this group. I understand they include amendment 5, which inserts
	“by the person being served”
	into clause 3 in line 13 of page 3, and its mirror, amendment 8, which inserts the same words into that clause in line 20. They also include amendments 10, 11
	and 12, which deal with leaving out the references to accredited persons from clause 4 and remove references to the powers of accredited persons to require a name and address and to instigate a criminal penalty when that name and address is not supplied, as well as amendment 14, which is consequential to the removal of the references to accredited persons. I am also told—I think I am correct—that the promoters are willing to accept my amendment 35, which would leave out clause 18 on the obstruction of an authorised officer. I understand that amendments 36 to 39, which would introduce my amendments to clause 20, thereby limiting the liability to a director or directors, would also be acceptable to the promoters.
	We will have to see what happens, and of course the procedural way of dealing with matters will be in your hands, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if that large number of amendments is acceptable to the promoters, I hope the amendments will be able to go through on the nod in due course. There is a lot more meat to this group of amendments than just those that have been accepted by the promoters, but it would be churlish of me not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green for at least agreeing to those amendments. Of course, none of the amendments could have been discussed if we had not blocked this Bill and required its consideration in the House on Report. Whatever happens, if the promoters accept the amendments, the Bill will be better than it would have been without them.

Mike Freer: I have greatly enjoyed this perambulation around local government, with bowler-hatted civil servants prodding miscreants with their money-grabbing umbrellas, but that picture bears no relation to the local government that I know. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I have sparred on this Bill in the past—I still have the scars—but I appreciate the vigour and genuine honesty of his approach to scrutiny and to his amendments.
	The Bill would not simply allow any local authority employee to prowl the streets of their borough looking for fines. Certainly, the concept that they would be able to collect £1,000 a go as they went about their business is fanciful. I understand that fixed penalty notices would have a set price and would be collected by the borough. The £1,000 fines to which Members have referred would be applied only by magistrates at their discretion and not by local authorities. I shall come back to whether my hon. Friend's amendments remain acceptable.
	The Bill has been scrutinised by the Opposed Bill Committee and I am grateful to its members for their work. My hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch have made some valid points about civil liberties, but what about the civil liberties of the silent majority who are tired of the antisocial behaviour of a small number of individuals and corporate bodies? It is the silent majority—the council tax payer—who are having to pick up the bill for clearing up enviro-crime. This low-level antisocial behaviour plagues many parts of the country, including the parts of London we are discussing.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley takes a great interest in combating antisocial behaviour. Indeed, he has gone on record as supporting Mayor Giuliani’s zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour
	and the broken window syndrome. I believe there has been a local problem in his constituency with youths ripping out flower beds and generally causing litter, about which he has called for police intervention.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I do take a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour and to crimes being committed—but as he has said, I have urged the police to take action. I have not called for the local authority to have wide-ranging powers to tackle this issue. I think that is where he and I part company.

Mike Freer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I guessed that was where we would part company. I wish him luck in getting the police to deal with flower beds being turned over, litter outside fast-food establishments and litter being thrown out of cars, because I simply cannot get my local borough command to take those issues seriously. We could argue for a whole afternoon about whether these are serious crimes and whether the police ought to deal with them, but that is a different issue. The current problem is that the police in London, certainly—I cannot comment on the borough command in Shipley—will not prioritise dealing with litter and enviro-crime. Therefore, we must either leave the issue to fester or allow authorised officers of the local authority to deal with it.
	On accreditation, the idea is not that every employee of a council will have the power to go out and start levying fixed penalty notices or taking people to the magistrates court to be fined. We are talking about civil enforcement officers who are already accredited and have significant training on how to prove that an offence has been committed. Councils also have environmental health officers who are highly trained and accredited on how to follow the rules of law and how to provide evidence should a case have to go to court. The notion that the town hall cat will be wandering around the borough levying fines is fanciful. We are talking about seriously trained officials who have been taught how to comply with the law and how to make sure that if there is a prosecution, evidence can be provided.
	There are already a number of police civilians—not just police community support officers but accredited civilians—who have the authority to issue notices. We have talked about whether London should be exempt and be a special case, but it is often the starting point for national legislation. It is not unusual for London to set the tone and for other parts of the country follow suit, but it is not only London that does that. I do not know whether many Members are acquainted with Brunel university, but apparently its security officers can issue fixed penalty notices. This is not just about widening scope because London has asked for it—a significant number of authorised civilians can already issue such notices. What we are saying is that London has some specific problems and that specific powers are needed for accredited, trained individuals.
	I have covered the point about £1,000 fines being targeted willy-nilly, which simply is not true. That would be the remit of the magistrates court. Let me make a point about the powers of authorised officers. They would be able to take action only where they believed that someone was committing a criminal offence, so the powers would not be used in respect of people going
	about their lawful business. Hon. Members have talked about conscientious, law-abiding citizens, but conscientious, law-abiding citizens would not be stopped and asked for their name and address and would not face the risk of prosecution. Only those believed to be committing an offence would be caught by the rules in the Bill.
	The issue of people giving false names and addresses has been raised. Clearly, with matters such as littering from cars, accredited officers would have access to the registration number, which could be cross-checked with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Many of the enviro-crimes that we see in London boroughs involve repeat offenders, particularly corporates—the large retailers that cause litter on the high street—or other organisations that cause problems on our high streets. Much dumping in our residential streets also involves repeat offenders and there may be a corporate address that officers can go back to if they believe or find out that they have been given a false name and address by the person they have stopped. Clearly, if a false name and address is given by someone of no fixed abode, that person cannot be prosecuted. That is a common problem with the current law that police officers face.

Philip Davies: I am slightly puzzled about the corporate causes of litter. Is my hon. Friend insinuating that if somebody walks into a McDonald’s, buys a Big Mac, fries and a Coke, leaves McDonald’s and drops litter on the floor, the responsibility for the litter lies with McDonald’s? Surely the only person with whom the responsibility lies is the person who dropped the litter, and the company cannot be held accountable for what its customers do.

Mike Freer: That is the very point. There are two issues. McDonald’s is a fine organisation based in my constituency. It takes a great deal of trouble to ensure through litter patrols that its customers do not create a nuisance, but if an organisation—say, Finchley Fried Chicken—decided to pour fat over the pavement, which sounds fanciful but has been known to be true, the officer can deal with that corporate body. However, if a person who has bought a take-away from Finchley Fried Chicken then chooses to drive down my street, which they do—I declare a passionate interest in the subject, as my street is often littered with take-away cartons—it is the person throwing the litter from the vehicle who would be stopped and served a notice. My hon. Friend is quite right: there are two issues. The corporates that are guilty of their misdemeanours, such as the fat, will be dealt with as a corporate body, but if someone is caught throwing litter from a car, it is the litterer who would be caught.
	I know that these measures sound draconian, and they often are in black and white. Some Members may have a dim view of council officials. As a former leader of the London borough of Barnet, I can tell them that my officers took great care to ensure that the powers vested in them were used very sparingly and only where the offence was commensurate with the action that they proposed to take.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was correct that the promoters of the Bill suggested that we could compromise on the amendments. However, my
	hon. Friend has not been able to compromise on some of them. We will therefore continue to sponsor the Bill unamended, apart from the three amendments suggested by the promoters.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). He has made a noble effort to turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse. One can see a vision of all the mulberry trees in China, with all the silkworms on them working busily away to provide enough silk to produce a purse, but I fear that even these fine worms have failed in their effort. Even though I support the amendments before us, the Bill remains broadly a pig’s ear. Let me go through it point by point, one by one, as quickly as I can so that others may speak on these important subjects.
	Amendment 5 deals with clause 3 on “Powers exercisable by police civilians and accredited persons”. How worrying it is, how concerning that legislation should be drafted in such a way that the penalties might be issued to somebody other than the person by whom the penalty ought to be paid. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, of all people, as innocent, as pure as the driven snow, could find some accredited person coming along, catching you by the scruff of the neck—an outrage in itself—and saying, “This penalty is for you,” when you had nothing to do with it, you knew nothing of it, you were, as I said, not guilty and as pure as the driven snow.
	With the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch things begin to be tided up a bit. We put in the words
	“by the person being served”.
	That seems right and proper and sensible, even though the clause itself is not particularly attractive.
	Now let us come on to these accredited persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made them sound like very nice approachable chappies who are all doing a good day’s work and fine stuff. I am sure that that is true of many of them, but do we not have in our mind—have we not always had in our mind—that vision of the officious traffic warden who comes round, the jobsworth who is out to get you, who stands there, shaking the parking meter, waiting for the seconds to tick past so that a £70 fine, going up to £140 if you do not pay it quickly, whacks upon your head? Is that the type of accredited person we wish to see going around?
	Does that not most fundamentally, and as a point of the greatest principle, undermine the role of constable? We have had in this country, since the founding of the Metropolitan police by Sir Robert Peel, a system of constables who have a warrant from the Crown, are trained, are authorised and are in a position to exercise fine judgments. They are regulated in a different way from others. They have different terms and conditions of service. They cannot go on strike, for example. We noticed this only last week, when we saw that the police, that fine body of men and women, were doing their duty while others were on strike.
	Do we not downgrade the police when we have these accredited persons who suddenly can wander around and issue penalties—accredited by the council, we know not how; the type of accreditation given to them, we know not what, but we do know that it is not a constable with the full majesty of the law and the warrant of the
	Crown behind him or her? Once we start doing it in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Golders Green, or rather, for Finchley and Golders Green—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has territorial ambitions, but probably they do not go that far—said that what happens in London may spread out to the rest of the country.
	Let us be absolutely clear. In North East Somerset we do not want this. We want the proper office of constable to be upheld. People in Nempnett Thrubwell do not want somebody appointed by the council to come round and dig them in the ribs when they accidentally drop a little bit of mud off their wellington boots or something like that, and are then accused of dropping litter. We must object. My hon. Friend is right to have objected to the principle of the accredited person because of the way in which it downgrades the role of the constable—a great and noble role.
	I saw the chief constable of Avon and Somerset police earlier today. This man, a chief constable, recently plunged into a river to rescue a driver who had had an accident, because that is the level of service and of commitment that we get from a constable. It is fundamentally different from that of an accredited person.
	I have further concerns about these accredited personages. How do we know who is and who is not an accredited person? I said that they should wear a bowler hat, though it occurred to me subsequently that there might be a few wigs going spare because I believe the Supreme Court has given them up. Certain people in the House of Commons have given up wearing wigs too, so perhaps there are a few wigs that could go round to these accredited persons so that we would know who they were as they went about their duties—fine full-bottomed wigs in 18th-century fashion. But perhaps in the 21st century we should be more modern and it should be the bowler hat, which is perhaps a better symbol nowadays of authority than the full-bottomed wig.

Chris Ruane: Hear, hear.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful for support from Opposition Members.
	What we currently have—Westminster city council did this with its parking attendants—are some desperately scruffy tatterdemalions who wander around as accredited persons. They are parking meter attendants and they look as though they have been dragged through a hedge backwards. Their uniforms are anoraky things, not the sort of thing that an officer of the Crown would ever be seen wearing—the sort of thing that could be worn by anybody. Who knows who may come up to us and say, “I am an accredited person. You are fined £10. Cash only. Thank you very much.”
	As we go about our lawful business, are we to be shocked and appalled by the attempts to extort money from us that come from accredited persons who are accredited only by themselves, because they have no fixed uniform, no set outfit, no clarity of purpose in what they are doing? I am very much with my hon. Friend in getting rid of all the references to accredited personages under section 47 of the Police Reform Act 2002 or any form of accrediting of these personages until we settle exactly who they are and whether they should be officers of the Crown and constables.
	Let us move on to clause 4. I am so pleased that the Opposition Benches are almost entirely empty, with only two notable and most honourable exceptions, as we discuss the abolition of clause 4. I know it is a matter of great sensitivity to Opposition Members for historic reasons, but they may have been a bit confused today. This is not the famous clause IV; this is another one. It relates to the power to require a name and address.
	I know that sometimes I bore the House with historical examples, but on this occasion I thought that I would go back to Odysseus. In order to escape from Polyphemus the Cyclops, Odysseus, when asked his name, replied “Nobody” and he got away. Do hon. Members think that there should have been an accredited person sitting by the Cyclops to tell Odysseus, “Look here, that won’t do at all. You’re fined £1,000 for saying your name is Nobody”?

Chris Ruane: He would have eaten him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed, that is what he was trying to do. He wanted him for his dinner. It seems to me that sometimes local councils wish to take their dinner off our plates through the fines they want to levy. Odysseus would have been caught out by that and prevented from escaping with his men, so there are circumstances in which one must be able not to give one’s name and address because doing so might not be in one’s best interests. Of course, Odysseus, in his hubris, called out his real name as he left. The Cyclops, who was blinded by then, screamed out, and his father, Poseidon, heard it and made Odysseus’s trip home that much harder. When a person’s name gets out into the public presses, things can become very difficult for them. I maintain the ancient right of Greeks, among others, not to give their name and address when asked.
	I will appeal to another source of history: P.G. Wodehouse. Many Members will remember that Bertie Wooster, when arrested for pinching a policeman’s helmet on boat race night—I think wines had been taken—gave a false name when arrested. I cannot remember what name he gave, but I think he said that he lived in Acacia avenue. It might be a good address to give if you are ever caught doing things you should not do. There was no additional fine for giving a false name and Bertie Wooster paid the fine handed down at the magistrates court in London—five guineas, which was a lot of money in those days—but got away with giving a false name. There is a great tradition, from Odysseus to Bertie Wooster, of being allowed to hide one’s name from people who do not necessarily have the full authority to request it.
	There are serious points within this as well. One may think that it is all frivolity and ancient history, but it is not. It is all about our ancient civil liberties. Until an individual has been shown to have done something that is wrong enough to be arrested, the state has no right to know who they are. As I go about my lawful business, the state does not have the right to stop me and ask me to prove my identity or address. Only if I have committed a crime can the state intervene.
	We come to the question of why this should be done by people other than police officers. The argument is always one of necessity or triviality, meaning that the crime is so unimportant that the police will not want to be bothered with it. It seems to me that if the police do
	not want to be bothered with it, and if it is not worth the time of the magistrates court to deal with it, is it really worth punishing someone for it in the first place. That is where the clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch proposes removing is so fundamentally wrong. It takes something that is trivial, gives a power to someone who is not an officer of the Crown and then promotes it to a high offence for which one can be fined £1,000. It is entirely disproportional to the initial activity that has led to the official being involved with the otherwise law-abiding subject.
	I think that the point my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made is profoundly important, although I was a little worried about the impression he gave that everyone who came down from Shipley was likely to commit an offence when they arrived in central London—perhaps the excitement of the bright lights gets to them. I can assure the House that when people from North East Somerset come to London they are as law abiding here as they are in North East Somerset, which I am glad to say has one of the lowest rates of crime in the whole United Kingdom. It is unfair, unreasonable and unjust to have different rules governing what one is supposed to say to unnamed, unknown, unspecified and unclear public officials here, in Shipley, in North East Somerset, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. We need a clear law so that people understand whether they are in danger of committing a crime and know what their rights, liberties and entitlements are.
	Some can argue, “Well, London’s busy”, but we all know that. If it is busy, it has more police. Rather shockingly, there are more police in London than there are in Avon and Somerset. One would have thought that we should have more police to keep crime even lower, but there is a general adjustment for the reality that London has serious problems that are different from those across the rest of the country. It has the level of expenditure that ensures that it can deal with these issues without having special laws and situations.
	At this point I will diverge from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, because I think that, other than his amendment that proposes to get rid of clause 4 altogether, his other consequential amendments are unsatisfactory. They still leave the right of a police community support officer to ask for a name and address, which I would not be in favour of. If this consideration comes to a vote, I will certainly vote against any amendment other than the complete removal of the clause.
	Let me move on to the Royal Mail and the Postage Act. This is a rather embarrassing bit of the Bill, because it refers to sex establishments, and we do not like talking about those in polite society, but on this occasion it is necessary to do so. It seems to me that there is a wonderful naivety in the Bill and a suggestion that the Royal Mail is as good as it was in the days of Trollope, when a letter could be posted before lunch, would arrive in the early afternoon and that one could then reply and correspondence goes backwards and forwards perfectly. Sadly, that is not how it is anymore.
	I happen to live on a street in London that has a relatively frequent name and so receive quite a lot of post for a branch of the Hong Kong and Shanghai
	Banking Corporation, which is on a street of the same name south of the river. Occasionally I receive coins in the mail which people wish to deposit in their bank accounts. As I am sure you realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hastily pass these on to a branch of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation so that they can be credited to the right person’s account. I use the example to remind hon. Members of the difficulties of relying on the ordinary post. The first-class post might or might not get there the next day, and the second-class post will get there before Christmas, so long as it is posted in the new year. The Bill does not ever establish that it should be the fist-class post. That means that the people running these dodgy establishments—I must confess that I have little sympathy for them—will be deprived of a right of justice, which I think is a mistake.
	The important thing about our ancient liberties and about justice is that we should apply it to people we slightly disapprove of and think are a little beneath the salt just as much as we do to those we think are good, honest fellows. I think that that should apply to those who run sex clubs. They are just as entitled to receive a summons, notification or a missive from the council in way that means we can be certain it has arrived by registered post as someone involved in more salubrious activities. I must confess that it is a shame that the Post Office is not in the state it was in the days of her late Majesty Queen Victoria, but there we are—O tempora, o mores, as I am sure I have said in the House before and will no doubt at some future date say again, possibly on a Friday morning.
	I was glad to hear that there was a thought that clause 18 might be withdrawn, but it seems to have been put back again, so I think that I am still entitled to speak in favour of the amendment that would abolish the clause that has been taken out and put back in again—it sounds a little like a soft-shoe shuffle or some such dance.

Mike Freer: Having reflected on the kind offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), we are now happy to accept amendments 5, 8, 10 to 12, 14 and 35 to 39. I hope that that is of help to my hon. Friend.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is extremely helpful. Indeed, it is both encouraging and worrying: it is encouraging in one sense, because it shows the generosity—the parliamentary spirit—of my hon. Friend, and that is extraordinarily welcome; but it is slightly worrying, given the inconsistency of the Bill. Should we really be negotiating with a group of councils—after we have been debating some of the amendments for little more than an hour—what they will and will not accept? I am not sure that the dignity of Parliament—the House of Commons; this honourable House—is properly and justly reflected by bandying about amendments in that way, so I had better, just in case clause 18 changes again, which would concern me, say a few words about it and the obstruction of an authorised officer.

Christopher Chope: I am not in any way churlish about the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) in accepting so many of my amendments. It is right for us to put on the record that he is in charge of the Bill and of taking it
	through this place; it is nothing to do with officials. He makes the decisions, and the decision that he has made is an excellent one.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Quite right. How could I fail to agree? I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green comes to the decision of withdrawing the whole Bill, we will welcome that decision even more. But just—just—in case it comes back at some later stage, let us look at it briefly and in passing, because we come back to the same problem of the authorised officer not being a constable.
	Who is this authorised officer? What is an obstruction? What is an intentional obstruction? What if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, fall over in front of him and he trips over you? Is that an obstruction, or do you have to be more aggressive? What happens if you see him coming but he is not in his uniform—you may not know it is him—and you scarper? Is that an obstruction of him in his duties because you are not there and, therefore, he cannot catch you, whereas if you were there he could catch you? That seems to me, arguably, an obstruction, even an intentional one, because you had to run away to be away from the person who was trying to catch you—because if you had not decided to run away, you would still be there, and then he would have caught you. So if you follow the logic of what I am saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are doing jolly well! But, if you follow the logic of what I am saying, you will see that the clause really ought to be removed and should never have been in the Bill in the first place.
	Again, the fines really do seem excessive, and I go back to the point that I was making about the traffic wardens in the city of Westminster, who were put in uniforms that any civilised fellow would have been ashamed to be seen dead in. They were the most scruffy things that really did make the wardens look as if they were vagrants, and I should have thought that most people would scarper if they saw somebody like that coming after them, particularly if they were bringing out a book of fines. One would think, “I’m getting out of his way pretty sharpish, because I don’t know really who he is and I don’t know why he’s got his fines book out, because I don’t think I have done anything wrong.” If we are going to authorise those sorts of people, many of us might obstruct them and say, “Who the Dickens do you think you are?” or words to that effect.
	That gives me the opportunity to answer the valid point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, that if one is innocent one has nothing to fear. If only it worked like that. Those of us who have contested parking tickets over the years—when we have done absolutely nothing wrong but the machine has broken or the person coming round has misread his own figures and all that stuff—have found that when we appeal we get off. It happens to those of us who are innocent again and again. I was even stopped under one of those ludicrous terrorist Acts that the previous Government passed—going about my lawful business.

Chris Ruane: You look like one!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I look like one. If I look like one, there is not a lot of hope for the rest of you, I have to say.
	Therefore, this idea that those of us who are innocent have absolutely nothing to fear at all and can go about our business safely, because it will not be us, is the wrong line to take. It is crucial to defend the liberties of those we dislike and disapprove of, as well as of those we like and approve of, and that is the essence of my objection to much of the Bill but, in particular, to clause 18.

Christopher Chope: What my hon. Friend says is reinforced by the fact that almost everybody who goes to a parking tribunal and appeals is successful, but very many people do not realise that they have such a right of appeal and, therefore, pay reluctantly and, probably, when they should not.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is, as always, absolutely spot on, and I should advise anybody in the Chamber today or listening outside to appeal if they get a parking ticket, because it is often wrong and unfair and being issued just as a money-grabbing exercise. Westminster city council is now doing so by extending parking charges to midnight, and that is a pretty awful thing to be doing—[ Interruption ] —but not, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I see you panther-like waiting to pounce on an irrelevant comment, part of the amendments under discussion.
	So I turn to clause 20, the last measure related to the amendments under consideration, and agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that it is drawn far too widely. It has to be the people at the top who are responsible, but the clause refers to
	“a manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate”,
	so I am a little worried that the cleaning lady is going to be nicked by some bod coming round in unrecognisable garb, whom we do not really know, saying, “We’ll have a few quid off you.” The measure is going to be a swindler’s charter if it goes through, because people will pretend that they are these authorised officers and sneak up on us and try to get money out of us for doing something that we should not, saying, “Well, it does catch you because you are an ‘other similar officer’. I am an ‘authorised officer’, you’re an ‘other similar officer’ and, therefore, we’ll take a fine off you.”
	To conclude my relatively brief remarks, though it would be possible to go on and on about this Bill, so many are its flaws and faults, so good are the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend and so wise was he to bring them forward to try, as I said at the very beginning, to make a silk purse out a sow’s ear, I am afraid to say, after all is said and done, that it is still—the meat of pigs.

Philip Davies: It is always a trial to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because, as I am sure we all agree, we could happily sit here all afternoon and listen to him, so wise is his counsel and so entertaining is his delivery. I am afraid that I cannot match it, but I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on tabling the amendments, and because today appears to have been a red letter day for him. Such was the speed at which our hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rattled through the amendments, which have now been accepted, that I struggled to keep up with them all, so my comments will
	be based on my understanding of the current situation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong at any point.
	I certainly support the thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said about the amendments, and particularly about the position of accredited persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green made the point that such council officials and officers are reasonable people who will use the powers only when necessary and sparingly, that they would not be used willy-nilly, and that that was his experience of council officials.
	My hon. Friend talked to me about my experience of my local police when investigating what might be considered petty or minor crime, and my experience of the police in Shipley is, at is happens, very good—but he must not only have had good experiences of council officials and officers, but also have come across the rather petty council officer who is a stickler for something and does not use any discretion or common sense.
	I am sure that we have all come across those people. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset referred to traffic wardens who wait for the clock to tick down before they put their £70 ticket on a vehicle, and there are also those who measure up to see whether one inch of a car is parked on a double yellow line, even though the vast bulk of the car is well within the parking space. I am sure that we have all had experiences of these things.
	It is completely unacceptable to give that kind of person additional powers to go about and terrorise what we would largely call law-abiding members of the public. In my hon. Friend’s part of the world there may well be very reasonable people who use their powers very sparingly. However, the rules would apply not only to the council officials whom he has in mind, and not only to the council officials in place at the moment, all of whom may be very reasonable people, but to council officials in future—and who knows what kind of people we may have running some of our local authorities in future? We should not be giving people all these powers just because the people we know at the moment seem to be okay. We have to bear in mind how they may be used, or abused, in future.
	Amendment 9, which is one of the few amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green is not accepting, is about the power to require names and addresses. That is a completely unacceptable aspect of the Bill. He said that that power would be exercised only where council officials believed that an offence was being committed. I have a problem with that, because the definition of when somebody believes that an offence is being committed is fairly loose. In a situation where there was no real reason for anybody to think that an offence was being committed, but one of these officials merely stated that they did believe that an offence was being committed, would that be good enough for them then to exercise the power granted in the Bill? Where is the check on whether they were right in believing that an offence had been, or was about to be, committed? By allowing them to use these
	powers in such circumstances we are, in effect, allowing them to use them whenever and wherever they like. That is totally unacceptable.
	I come back to the point that I made briefly in an earlier intervention. Lots of my constituents come down from Shipley to London. They may not come down very often, perhaps only every now and then, but they know that they do not have to give their name and address to a council official when it is requested of them. If a council officer from Bradford city council demands to know their name and address, my constituents know that they do not have to tell him, and they can tell him to go forth and multiply. When my constituents come down to London on their day trip, or for a week’s holiday, or to visit the theatre, or whatever it may be, and a council official in Westminster says to them, “You must give me your name and address,” they would be perfectly reasonably entitled to expect to be able to say to him, “Go forth and multiply. I know I can tell my council official in Bradford to go forth and multiply, so there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to tell a Westminster city council official the same thing.”
	It is totally intolerable, unacceptable and unjust that my constituents in that situation would be committing an offence and liable to pay a fine. How are they supposed to know? Many of my constituents are avid watchers of the Parliament Channel; they want to know what is going on and like to be very well informed about the political debate. However, are we really expecting them to be fully aware, having looked it up before they came down on their trip to London, of the powers of Westminster city council officials, on the off-chance that they may have been given a power that council officials in Bradford have not been given?
	It is complete nonsense to think that that could be acceptable in this country. This is not just a matter of minor interest; we are talking about our fundamental individual freedoms, and surely those apply equally right across the United Kingdom. I am a believer in localism, but surely we cannot farm out our fundamental freedoms to the principle of localism and allow every local authority to decide how illiberal it wants to be in its area. That is unacceptable. It is for this House to stand up against that kind of assault on our individual freedoms.
	I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that he would not accept amendment 9, which would delete clause 4. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I am not an expert in parliamentary procedure, so I do not know whether we can put any of the amendments to a vote. However, as the promoter is now prepared to accept amendment 5, the lead amendment, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will say that he wishes to press amendment 9 to a Division, because we are talking about a fundamental freedom.
	I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be minded to allow a Division on that amendment if it is in order, because it is the most important amendment in the group. This is something that everybody in this House should be concerned about, because it could affect all our constituents. This might be the London Local Authorities Bill, but as so many of our constituents come down to London, it could affect any of our constituents.

Christopher Chope: I hope that we will have the opportunity to test the opinion of the House on amendment 9, because most of the debate has centred on the powers under clause 4 to require names and addresses, and the penalties associated with the refusal to provide them. My hon. Friend is addressing the same issue, which is one of the most fundamental civil liberties issues in the Bill.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said earlier that this would be a red letter day for him, as so many of his amendments are being accepted. I am beginning to think that it is a red letter day for me too, because I appear to have persuaded him that amendment 9 is the most important amendment to put to a Division. I fear that I must now rely on you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to complete my red letter day, which would be a rarity for me in this House.
	I think that I am right in saying that the sponsor is minded to accept amendments 35 to 39, the final amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has tabled to the Bill. In case I have got that wrong, I want to touch on clause 18 and amendment 35, which relates to it. The clause talks about
	“Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer”.

Mike Freer: I am happy to reconfirm that I have accepted amendments 35 to 39.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing that up, because I had a great deal of concern about what constituted an intentional obstruction of an authorised officer and what constituted an unintentional obstruction. As he has made it clear that he will accept amendment 35, which will delete clause 18, I do not propose to waste the House’s time by going through it.
	I will mention amendment 21, because it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has not accepted it. It relates to clause 8 and the issue of postage. Given that he has been so generous in accepting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has not accepted amendment 21. I will give it a whirl and try to persuade him that he should accept that amendment as well. It seems not only to be harmless, but to be in the best interests of the local authorities.
	Clause 8 attempts to strike out the requirement that the council send its enforcement notices
	“in a prepaid registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service”,
	and to substitute for it a requirement to send them “by post”. Amendment 21 would strike out that change and ensure that local authorities had to send notices by prepaid registered letter or the recorded delivery service. It is perfectly reasonable that councils should do that, for a number of reasons. These are important matters, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green will accept. That is why the Bill tries to address them. If they are such important matters, surely the local authority should have to reflect that importance by sending notices out by recorded delivery or registered post.
	I wonder how many of these infringements my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green expects to occur, given that clause 8 relates to the City of Westminster Act 1996, which makes provision about the closure of unlawful sex establishments.

Mike Freer: I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular number, but I can try to help him on the issue of postage. My recollection is that county court judgments, council tax arrears notices or bailiff action, penalty charge notices and speeding tickets are not issued by registered post. They are all issued through the Royal Mail. If it is good enough for the police or the courts, surely it is good enough for councils.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point, but of course the big difference between the cases that he mentions and this one is that there is quite a large volume of those notices to go out in the post, so there is a substantial cost saving to the taxpayer in having them sent out by post rather than registered post or recorded delivery.
	That brings me back to my question about how many notices my hon. Friend expects to be sent out under the provisions of the 1996 Act about the closure of unlawful sex establishments. I cannot for the life of me believe that the local authority will send out hundreds of thousands of them in any given year. Surely we are talking about a handful at the most—maybe, on the generous side, 15 or 20. I cannot imagine it could possibly be any more than that. So what cost saving would there be? It seems to me that the local authority might save itself £50 or £60 if the change were made, and I suspect that that is a very generous estimate. I am all for local authorities saving money, but surely there are far bigger fish to fry in that context.
	I believe that the change would not save the local authority money but end up costing it more. When somebody is sent something simply through the post rather than by registered post or recorded delivery, we do not know whether it has been delivered. When something is sent by registered post or recorded delivery we do know that, because it can be traced back through the Royal Mail. Nobody can deny that they have received the letter. If it is sent out by ordinary post, who is to know whether it has been received by the intended recipient? It may well have been, but it may not.
	If the intended recipient claimed, rightly or wrongly, that they had not received it, and the council intended to pursue an enforcement notice on the back of the letter that they sent out, where would the local authority stand? Would it be able to pursue an enforcement notice if the recipient said, “Well, you may have sent it by post, but I never received it, and you’ve got no evidence at all to say that I did”? Might that be contested in the courts? Might a magistrates court or district judge say, “Well, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that this person did not receive the letter, so we’re not allowing this enforcement notice to go ahead until we can be sure that they’ve received the official documentation from the local authority”? To risk going down that road to save a maximum of £50 or £60 a year, or whatever, seems to me unbelievably ridiculous. I suspect that the change would cost local authorities more in the long run. As my hon. Friend has been so generous in accepting other amendments, I really do not see why he is not prepared to accept one that seems so very small.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case against clause 8(3) and (4). Does he accept that one problem with the proposed change is that it could well result in a lot of injustice? People could find that they
	faced the closure of an establishment alleged by the council to be an unlawful sex establishment, although they had not received the notice because it had been sent by ordinary post.

Philip Davies: I was describing people who would simply pretend that they had not received the notice because there would be no trace of it, but my hon. Friend is right that there would be another group—those who genuinely did not receive the notice. What happens in that situation? Does the local authority simply send people to close down an establishment even though the proprietor has no knowledge that that is about to happen? Could that happen when the proprietor has lots of customers inside their establishment, which would cause a great deal of embarrassment for them and damage any legitimate businesses they might have?
	That is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. If someone is having their business closed by the local authority and if their establishment is deemed to be unlawful, surely the least they can expect is a guarantee that they will receive the notice that makes that clear. Surely it is this House’s responsibility to defend people’s freedoms in this country, and to ensure that local authorities have taken every reasonable step to ensure that somebody knows about an enforcement that is about to take place.
	We should not allow there to be doubt as to whether someone has or has not received a notice. I am sure that Royal Mail does a fantastic job, but even it would not guarantee that every letter reaches its intended recipient. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green to think again on amendment 21 and also to think of the upside and downside for local authorities of defying it. I hope that he will reflect on that and decide, in the spirit of consensus that he has adopted, to accept it.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on his diligence and hard work. Such things are very important to people. We see from the lack of numbers in the Chamber that other hon. Members have probably not even bothered to look at the provisions in the Bill, whereas he has gone through them with a fine-tooth comb and found where our individual freedoms are being put at risk by unnecessary local council bureaucracy and officialdom—and sometimes even worse.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for tabling the amendments, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has accepted them. I do not know whether he has done so tactically to oil the wheels of the Bill or whether he has been persuaded by the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I suspect the latter. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green is a reasonable man who listens to the arguments, and I genuinely believe that he has been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
	I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has been persuaded of the merits of amendment 21 and that he will reflect on it while there is still time. I suspect that he will not change his mind on amendment 9, which is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will find a way to press it
	to a Division, and that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will find a way to accept that. I can assure my hon. Friend that if that happens I will support him in the Division Lobby, because I want to support and defend the fundamental freedoms of people in this country, not least those of people from my constituency who visit London.

Chris Williamson: I very much concur with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). Far from there being a lack of support for the Bill from London Members, I remind hon. Members that on Second Reading, there was considerable representation on both sides of the Chamber and hon. Members spoke with enthusiasm for the provisions. It is very unfair for hon. Members today to suggest that the lack of Members in the Chamber justifies their stance.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will know that since the Bill was debated on Second Reading, the Opposed Bill Committee has deleted quite a lot of its contents. Given, as he says, that the Bill was supported so enthusiastically on Second Reading, is it not possible that the reason why so few people are interested now is that so much of it has been deleted?

Chris Williamson: I suspect that that might be part of the explanation. I regret that some of the clauses were removed in Committee, particularly the ones relating to food hygiene—the scores on the door proposals—and to houses in multiple occupation. Having said that, the Bill is still worthy of support from this House. If these measures are subject to a Division, I urge hon. Members to do the right thing and support the Bill.
	The hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) have subjected us to a range of fairly spurious and absurd criticisms of the Bill. They have enjoyed poking fun at local authorities, which is an indication of their lack of support for local government and what local authorities do in our communities. The Opposition take the view that local authorities are very much a force for good. They are a form of government that is close to the people whom they serve. Elected members at a local level—local councillors—do an excellent job in representing and standing up for their constituents. This Bill has the support of all 33 local councils across London of every political persuasion, so it has cross-party support. It gives local authorities in London the ability to stand up for their communities and the residents who elect them.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating a curious line of argument. Is he really suggesting that in order to demonstrate our support for local authorities, we have, by definition, to agree to give them the same powers that police officers have? To suggest that that is the only way to support them is surely absurd.

Chris Williamson: It is not absurd. It is the hon. Gentleman who has been making a number of absurd criticisms. The point is that this Bill has cross-party support; all 33 London councils support the powers
	that this Bill would give to them to stand up for their communities. There are very real problems that this Bill will help to address.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about freedom. It seems to me that he wants to stand up for the freedom of an individual to act in an antisocial way. What about the silent majority of decent, law-abiding citizens whose neighbourhoods are often blighted by the activities of a small minority? If this Bill is passed, it will give local authorities, where it is appropriate and necessary, an ability to address those concerns of local residents. At the moment, local authorities are in many ways powerless to deal with the problems that confront them. It is important that this House gives local authorities the tools that they need to do their job.
	Let us be clear about this. One hon. Member—I cannot remember whether it was the hon. Member for Christchurch, the hon. Member for North East Somerset or the hon. Member for Shipley—talked about the austere times in which we live. I accept that that is true and that local authorities are being subject to unjustified cuts. The problem is that if these measures are not agreed today and local authorities are not given these new powers, the cost of dealing with the consequences of the sorts of activities that we have been talking about will be that much higher. I cannot believe that the Government Members who oppose the Bill think it a good idea that we should deny local authorities the ability more effectively to address problems that not only blight neighbourhoods and the lives of ordinary people, but cost council tax payers in those local authority areas considerable sums. Surely it is far better to give local authorities the powers to deal with those problems and put in place the deterrent measures provided for in the Bill, which might help to stamp out problems that are a cause of considerable concern.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that on issues as fundamental as civil liberties we should have national laws rather than local laws? Is it not incumbent on this House to speak not only on behalf of the residents of London, but on behalf of the people who come to London—the visitors, the people who work in London and those with other interests in London? Is it not our responsibility to look at the big picture, rather than the sectional interest?

Chris Williamson: If I might say so, the hon. Gentleman seems to be overstating the civil liberties argument. In my view, this is not an illiberal Bill in any way, shape or form, nor does it impinge on the civil liberties of decent, law-abiding citizens. Surely he can see that it is sensible and proportionate to give local authorities the tools they need to address the genuine concerns of large numbers of their constituents about what are significant problems. Surely he can see that if we do not give local authorities the tools to do that job, the whole political process is brought into disrepute. When constituents approach their Member of Parliament or their councillors to ask for assistance in finding a resolution to the sorts of issues that this Bill would deal with, and find that they are unable to assist them, people lose faith in the political process. Surely that is a more important issue than some spurious argument about civil liberties.

Philip Davies: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that civil liberties are a spurious issue, although that gives an insight into what the Labour party believes
	in these days. How does he expect his constituents in Derby to know that, although they do not have to give their names and addresses to a council official in Derby, they do have to give them to a council official in London? Is he going to go around personally communicating that message to every one of his constituents, or are they expected to know by some remote control device?

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that civil liberties were a “spurious issue”. My point is that he and his hon. Friends are using the civil liberties argument in a spurious way.
	As for my constituents coming down to London, if the hon. Gentleman reads the relevant clause in the Bill, he will see that it deals with the anxiety—if it is a genuine anxiety—that he has expressed. The Bill is clear that a designated individual from the council would have to demonstrate their authorisation to seek the information that they were requesting, so that issue is dealt with. However, the vast majority of people coming from Derby to visit our great capital would have no difficulty with council officers as a result of the Bill. This Bill is about ensuring that local authorities can stand up for the silent majority—in other words, the vast majority—of those living in London, who want local authorities to be able to respond effectively to local residents’ concerns about a range of issues that the Bill would go some way towards addressing.

Christopher Chope: To dwell a moment more on the issue of Derby, is the hon. Gentleman content that under the Bill a council officer or accredited person from London could go to one of his Derby constituents and serve a fixed penalty notice on him that had resulted from a parking offence in London, whereas a similar official from Derby council could not go to the same resident to serve a fixed penalty notice in relation to an offence committed in Derby?

Chris Williamson: I do not have a major problem with that. I think that the circumstances of London are, to be fair, unique. It is a more populated—I will not say overpopulated—and busy city with unique problems and unique issues. That means that different measures and powers might be more appropriate in London than they might be, say, in Derby. As I say, I have no difficulty at all with that, and for the reasons I have outlined, I support the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green. The Opposition are quite content with the Bill’s provisions.

Tom Brake: I rise to speak very briefly. First, I declare an interest in that my wife works for a London local authority. Secondly, I support the Bill. It is entirely appropriate for Parliament to support giving greater powers to local authorities where necessary. We should not be scared of there being a patchwork quilt of different powers at different levels in different places. I am sure that we and our constituents can cope with that. The portrayal by some Members of people who work in local authorities as being either little dictators or scruffy bureaucrats is extremely unfair. I am sure that some of those Members must be hoping
	that their constituents, many of whom work for local authorities, will not read
	Hansard 
	too closely; if they do, they will see the views of their MPs contained therein.

Bob Neill: I am grateful that I have been given the opportunity to sit through this almost unique debate. I hope to participate fairly briefly, as Members still wish to consider other aspects of the Bill in the time available.
	It is fair to say that this is an unusual type of Bill and this is probably an even rarer stage of debate on it. I am grateful to all Members who have participated and hope they will forgive me if I do not follow them down all the highways and byways through which the debate has ranged. I shall say a few words factually about the Government’s stance and position on the Bill as we now find it, and I shall cover a little of the history.
	I believe this Bill started out before the last general election. It is, of course, a private Bill, so a different set of procedures apply. It has been changed a great deal in the course of its passage. It is worth remembering that it is more than a year since the Bill was last debated in this House and there have been some significant changes. Because it is an unusual form of legislation, it is right that the appropriate level of scrutiny is given to it. I appreciate the spirit in which Members of all parties have approached the debate.
	The changes take on board to some extent the concerns raised by the Government at an earlier stage. I hope hon. Members will recollect—I looked back and checked—that my concerns focused in particular on measures that potentially placed undue burdens on businesses, business owners and entrepreneurs or that otherwise did not sit comfortably with Government policies.
	In fairness, the principal elements that concerned the Government on Second Reading have been removed, and I thank the Bill’s supporters for their flexibility and willingness to compromise. As is normal in the case of such Bills, all the Departments that might be affected have been consulted, and no concern has been expressed about direct conflict with Government policy. As far as can be ascertained, it has historically been the convention for Governments to take a neutral position on private Bills, and that is what the Government intend to do in this instance. The Bill has been scrutinised by the House, and it is therefore appropriate for the Government to defer to the conclusions that Members reach on the basis of what we have heard so far, and of what we may yet hear before the day is out.

Christopher Chope: It seems that the Government are now saying that they are taking a neutral position. However, on Second Reading they expressed something other than neutrality: they expressed opposition to certain provisions. Can I tease out from my hon. Friend a little more about how the Government decide when they will be neutral, when they will be opposed, and when they will support a private Bill?

Bob Neill: Because there is comparatively little of what could almost be described as jurisprudence in this regard, we must depend to some extent on precedent, while also applying a measure of practicality on a case-by-case basis.
	Given that background, I do not think it appropriate to elaborate further at this stage.

Christopher Chope: We have had an excellent debate. I thank all who have participated, including those who have made telling interventions. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was not present for much of the debate, but I am grateful to him for his participation, although he did not go into much detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for listening to the arguments and, as a result, giving notice that, on behalf of the promoters, he will accept a fair number of my amendments.
	I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) for supporting the amendments, thereby contributing significantly to the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green to accept so many of them. They go some way towards improving some of the clauses in the Bill, but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, they do not do anything other than ameliorate the Bill. They do not address some of the most fundamental issues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset spoke for some time about clause 4, which contains the power to require names and addresses. He cited a number of historical precedents. I thought the Homeric example was the most telling, but the reference to P.G. Wodehouse was also very pertinent. However, underlying his argument, which he made in his inimitable and witty style, were some serious issues that touched on the reason that we have not had revolutions in the United Kingdom for centuries. We have always accepted the primary importance of allowing citizens their liberties, and we take away those liberties only if there is a strong case for so doing. Recently, however, there has been a gradual erosion of the right to which he referred—the right of a person not to tell anybody their name, address and identity unless they have committed, or are thought to be committing, a criminal offence, and even then only if that information is demanded by a police constable.
	That right was jealously guarded when the House considered the legislation relating to police community support officers. The House realised that PCSOs might need to ask the identity of individuals whom they thought were committing criminal offences. Even then, however, the House did not allow PCSOs to have the power of arrest. Instead, it said that PCSOs could ask someone who refused to give their name and address or whom they suspected of giving an inaccurate name and address to stay behind for up to half an hour, during which time a police constable could come along and effect the necessary arrest.
	Clause 4 would significantly extend that power to borough councils and community support officers, although as a result of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has accepted, clause 4 will no longer apply to accredited persons. Obviously we are grateful for that, but we think that the power in clause 4 to require names and address, coupled with the power effectively to criminalise a person and subject them to a maximum £1,000 fine for refusing to supply that information, is wrong in principle.
	It is all the more wrong that the law should apply in one part of the country and not across the country as a whole. The House should deal with issues of civil liberties on a national basis, rather than on a piecemeal basis. Nobody has made the case for why borough councils or PCSOs in London should have greater powers to obtain names and addresses and to impose penalties if they are not supplied than powers elsewhere in the country. At the heart of the provision, therefore, is a problem. It is a misuse of a private Bill to extend powers at the expense of ordinary citizens in London, especially if the same is not being done elsewhere in the country.
	The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, quite reasonably, that the Bill was supported by the 33 London boroughs, but that is not an end in itself. If this was simply a matter of byelaws, those London boroughs could implement them; but here we are introducing public law and criminal restrictions in London and not elsewhere in the country. It is incumbent upon the House to consider the matter not only from the point of view of a resident of a London borough, but in a national context and from the point of view of people who work in London, visitors and others.

Philip Davies: Is that not the crux of the matter? It is of no surprise that local authorities are in favour of the provisions. If the House is to provide for hugely extended powers, it is perfectly likely that the bodies getting those increased powers will be in favour of them. Is it not the House’s duty to prevent such bodies from having undue extra powers at the expense of individuals in our constituencies?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right, and he made a powerful speech asking why people in Shipley should be dealt with differently from people in London, and why people from Shipley who happen to be visiting London should find they are subject to a different set of laws than if they were in their own constituency. We realise that the laws will be different if we visit a foreign country, but we do not expect that to be the case between different parts of England—such as for people from Shipley, Christchurch or even Derby—let alone the rest of the United Kingdom.
	There is a fundamental issue of principle here, and I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister says the Government are neutral on this matter. How can the Government be neutral on an issue of civil liberties that affects the entire country? How can they say, “We are totally relaxed about whether there is an erosion of civil liberties in London but not elsewhere”? It seems to me that the Government ought to have a view on that.
	My hon. Friend the Minister says that the jurisprudence is unclear. I impress on him the fact that he, as the Minister, is able to establish precedent from the Dispatch Box. Perhaps he will seize that opportunity, if not on this set of amendments then on subsequent amendments, and thereby set a precedent and establish the future jurisprudence on when the Government are neutral, when they are opposed and when they are in favour of a particular provision of a private Bill.
	I must not be too critical of the Minister, however, as he could have expressed the view that he was supportive of the promoters of the Bill in this regard. I must take some solace from the fact that he and the Government
	are neutral. The message from that to Members is that, as private Bill business should be, this is very much a matter of private conscience. It is nothing to do with the Whips. Each Member must make up their own mind as to whether they think it is reasonable that we should extend to London the power to require names and addresses subject to a penalty for failure to give that information as proposed in clause 4, or whether we should say that if we are going to extend that power to local authorities in the future it should be extended across the entire country after a proper debate.
	This has been an excellent debate and I thank all those who have participated. The promoters of the Bill have indicated a willingness to accept a number of the amendments, and I seek to have them incorporated into the Bill, if that is the will of the House, but I also wish to test the opinion of the House on amendment 9.
	Amendment 5 agreed to.
	Amendment  8  agreed to.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Power to require name and address

Amendment proposed: 9, leave out clause 4—[Mr Chope.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 57, Noes 145.

Question accordingly negatived.

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House—[ Interruption. ] I know it is exciting, Mr Percy, being a Teller, but perhaps if Members took their seats it would make the business easier. With the leave of the House we will take amendments 10 to 12 and 14 together.
	Amendments 10 to 12 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Street litter control notices

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 15.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments 16 to 20, 3 and 4.

Christopher Chope: It is a great pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. The lead amendment would remove clause 5 from the Bill and I tabled it because the clause extends significantly the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to street litter. It offends against the principle that we were discussing on the previous group of amendments by making this extension apply merely in Greater London, rather than across the country as a whole. It is implicit in the fact that this is being brought forward in a private Bill that the Government would not support such an extension across the whole country. My argument is that in a unitary state we should have the same laws on street litter control in London as apply in the rest of the country.
	The effect of clause 5 is summarised on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, which states:
	“Street litter control notices are notices served under section 93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They can be served by the principal litter authority (in London, the borough council) imposing requirements on occupiers of premises with a view to the prevention of accumulations of litter or refuse in and around any street or open land adjacent to any street. Under section 94 of the 1990 Act, the Secretary of State is given power to prescribe the descriptions of commercial or retail premises in respect of which a street litter control notice may be issued, amongst other things.”
	The 1990 Act deals with commercial or retail premises. It gives the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe the descriptions of commercial or retail premises—in other words, to limit the application so that it extends not to all commercial or retail premises, but only to some of them. The effect of clause 5 would be to extend the type of premises that the Secretary of State can prescribe under section 94 so that it includes all premises in Greater London, except for what are described as dwellings, which most of us would call houses. This will bring into the scope of the street litter control notice procedures public buildings and other buildings that are not commercial or retail premises.
	This sweeping power was brought in to deal with the problem that many of us experience with premises occupied by takeaway food shops. For example, people go into the takeaway food shop, collect their food in a container, then think it best to deposit their container on the public highway or on the pavement after they have consumed its contents, and sometimes before they have consumed all of its contents. That causes a nuisance.
	Similarly, where there are retail banking premises with cash tills, people often ask for a receipt, take their money, and as soon as the receipt is issued, they throw it on to the ground. That is the sort of litter nuisance which the existing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act are designed to address.
	What has obviously come to the notice of the officers of Westminster city council and other councils in London is that people sometimes hang around in the porches of offices smoking, because they are not allowed to smoke inside the offices. It is said that as a result of that, enormously increased powers are needed under the provisions of clause 5 in order to extend to every single building in London, other than a dwelling, the ability of the council to impose a litter requirement on the occupiers of those premises. That could involve them having to regularly sweep or maintain areas well beyond their own premises, in effect duplicating the role of the public street sweeper.
	It seems that this, like so much in the Bill, is a sweeping provision to deal with what is, according to any view, a relatively small issue. If people stand outside a building to smoke and deposit their litter on the street, they are already guilty of an offence that can be enforced, but if the litter falls on private land it is the responsibility of the owner of the land to clear up the detritus and debris. Sensibly, containers are often provided outside buildings so that people can stub out their cigarettes and throw away their fag packets. I am not a smoker, but I know that that is what happens in the designated smoking area on Speaker’s Green, where people working on the premises can put their smoking litter in a receptacle.
	Considering the pretext set out in the Bill’s preamble, one wonders why this enormously wide power is being taken. If this is a problem in London, it is obviously not unique to the city and applies in every town and city across the land. Many people think that the councils have a hidden agenda to transfer responsibility for cleaning public highways to adjacent landowners. For example, almost every office on Victoria street could have a litter control notice issued to it, the consequence of which would be that their owners would have collective responsibility for cleaning the pavement along the entire length of the street. That would be true of almost every street in central London, which on the whole are occupied by commercial premises and Government buildings, rather than residential accommodation.
	There is a concern that this provision is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is far too extensive. Indeed, one of the petitions initially put forward against the Bill noted the objections of the society of theatre managers, which could see that it was effectively another stealth tax on their activities. People leaving the theatre might drop their tickets or cigarette butts, but that is not the fault of the theatre. If those people drop their litter, surely it should be the responsibility of the local authority to collect it as part of its normal street sweeping exercises.
	A large number of people are very concerned about Westminster city council’s plans to raise vast sums of additional income by extending on-street parking restrictions until midnight on weekdays and introducing them for the first time on Sundays. The council’s income will increase significantly, yet this provision in the Bill allows the council the opportunity to absolve itself of responsibility for keeping the streets clean and to pass the cost of doing so on to office owners. There is a
	complete difference between a takeaway food shop, which makes its profits out of giving customers food in packages that they can take out of the shop and dispose of, and an office or public building, where people congregate outside the front door to have a discussion over a cigarette.
	That is the background to clause 5. It is one of the Bill’s provisions that was not really discussed in the opposed Bill Committee, and that is why it is worth discussing it in the House this afternoon. We need to take into account its genuine motives, because the current explanation does not add up. It is implausible and it shows that there is a secret agenda to transfer the responsibility for and cost of street sweeping from local authorities to the adjacent occupiers of premises such as public buildings and offices.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green were to make a compelling case, explaining exactly why those wide-ranging additional powers are needed, the House would take that into account, but amendment 15 gives him the opportunity to do just that.
	That brings me to clause 6, and to amendment 16, which would leave the clause out of the Bill. Clause 6 removes the prohibition on turnstiles in public lavatories in London, stating:
	“Section 1 of the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act 1963…shall not apply in respect of a public lavatory or public sanitary convenience controlled or managed by a borough council.”
	In that context, it is relevant to note that the Bill was presented to the House in November 2007, but that it was not until the following spring that the then Government, of whom you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were a distinguished ministerial member, issued a paper on public conveniences. The paper was introduced by Baroness Andrews and entitled, “Improving Public Access to Better Quality Toilets: A Strategic Guide”. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it ever had your approval as a Treasury Minister, but it extended to many pages and refers to the turnstile provision under discussion. As though that were not enough, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government then carried out an inquiry into the issue.
	That reminds me of when I was a trainee barrister and we had occasion to go down to the Old Bailey and watch some cross-examination. Learned counsel said to the witness, “And what happened next in the lavatory?” and the witness said, “Well, what happened in the toilet was this,” and so it went on, with the witness insisting that the right expression was “toilet” and learned counsel insisting that it was “lavatory”. Anyway, under the erstwhile Deputy Prime Minister, who was in charge at the time I think, the paper was very much about improving public access to better quality “toilets” rather than “lavatories”.
	Be that as it may, the Select Committee looked into the issue and concluded that the problem was one of too many turnstiles in public lavatories on private land, citing the difficulties one sees at some railway stations, where people try to get through the turnstile with their luggage, trolley or pushchair and cannot do so. The Committee therefore suggested that a similar prohibition on turnstiles should be extended to private premises, but the Bill before us goes in completely the opposite
	direction and removes the prohibition on turnstiles in public lavatories on council-owned premises.
	If we have to finish these proceedings shortly, I hope that my hon. Friends will have a chance to look in greater detail at the abundant material on the issue, and that when they look at it they will be persuaded—
	Three hours having elapsed since the start of proceedings, the business was interrupted (Order,  1 December) .
	Bill to be further considered  on Tuesday 13 December.

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

David Amess: Throughout my time in Parliament I have consistently campaigned on animal welfare issues. I do not believe that I have been unreasonable, extreme or silly about those issues, but I have endeavoured to ensure that animals’ interests have been represented in this Chamber. By virtue of a ten-minute rule Bill, together with Lord Houghton of Sowerby and the then Minister, Douglas Hogg, I was fortunate to secure on the statue book the Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988. There are many other animal welfare measures regarding pet shops, exotic and endangered species, puppy farming and the like which I have tried to encourage through legislation. In 1986 I served on the Committee that considered the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill.
	In 1876 Parliament passed the first legislation in any country in the world to control live experiments that might cause pain. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 was a response to some horrifying reports about the practice of surgical procedures on live animals without anaesthesia. That Act stood the test of time well, but the 1986 legislation brought it up to date. I well remember the then Minister, David Mellor, doing battle with the former Member of Parliament Harry Cohen. It was a very interesting exchange of views, but I am glad that the measure that ultimately reached the statute book was well appreciated.
	The European Union has adopted a new directive on animals testing—Directive 2010/63. I point out to the Minister that the Home Office will be amending the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to comply with the directive. A number of colleagues have already contacted me to say that they are very concerned about this matter. It is true that there will be a public consultation, and I understand that the Home Office is currently analysing responses and putting together a draft proposal that will be sent to Parliament next year. However, my colleagues and I are very concerned about the European directive, simply because we in this country pride ourselves on the way in which we treat animals, and we need to be convinced that all countries in the European Union have the same high standards as we do.
	Our country is allegedly a nation of animal lovers. Sadly, words and actions do not always match up. I regard the measure of a civilisation to be how animals are treated. I pay tribute to the many organisations and groups that battle to stop cruelty to animals, helping to generate support and awareness about various issues. As regards the particular matter that I wish to raise with the Minister, I am indebted to Kathy Archibald and Louise Owen, who, among others, have briefed me so well. Indeed, they are probably on the line now, hoping that I can make changes to the speech and get in yet another piece of lobbying.
	Writing in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, David Horrobin answered the question:
	“Does the use of animal models of disease take us any closer to understanding human disease?”
	His response echoes the concerns that I wish to raise in the House tonight:
	“With rare exceptions, the answer to this is likely to be negative.”
	The process before clinical drugs come to be tested on a human being should be well understood, but I am not sure that it is. Anyone who hopes to get a new drug on to the market must first put it through a series of tests on various animals. It is that reliance on animals as a final safety screen before products go to clinical trials that concerns me, for that “safety screen” is no such thing. Animal models are not a reliable indicator of how a human being will react to a drug.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has just taken her place, will be glad to hear that I have already raised the European directive that she is concerned about, and that the Minister nodded. I am therefore optimistic that Home Office officials will be working on the advice right now.
	The safety of medicines is an issue of increasing concern. Every year, 1 million Britons are hospitalised by prescription medicines. That costs the NHS up to £2 billion a year. The Safety of Medicines Bill, which I introduced earlier this year, is intended to safeguard against this growing problem. I believe that the Bill has widespread support—but then I would say that. However, it has been misrepresented, although not intentionally I am sure, and it has certainly been misunderstood. Although my opposition to cruelty to animals is well documented, it is important to make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not call for animal tests to be replaced per se. It is about determining the best means to ensure the safety of medicines and to protect patients against adverse drug reactions.
	It could be argued that the use of animals is ethically and morally wrong. Many people would argue that strongly. However, in this debate the criticism of the use of animals focuses not on the suffering of the animal, which can be quite shocking, but on the fact that animal models are not accurate indicators of human responses. That in turn creates risks for volunteers, patients and sufferers during and after human clinical trials. I believe that there is ample evidence to support the argument that animal models do not function properly in their role.

Jim Shannon: I do not often disagree with the hon. Gentleman or question him. However, there are many examples of medicines that have been perfected by their use on animals and have saved lives. How will he ensure that that continues to happen, given what he has been setting out? My concern is that there is some goodness in this practice. Let us not lose that.

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on many things, and it would be a shame if we fell out on this issue. I hope to prove by the end of my contribution that there would certainly not be the adverse impact that he fears.

Chris Williamson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue before the House, and I very much support him. I am sure that he is going to come on to this point, but my response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would be that in an infamous case, thalidomide was proven safe
	for use on animals, but we all saw the tragic consequences of that. There has been a lot of publicity about that, but there are many other examples that have not had the same level of publicity. As the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) pointed out—before the hon. Member for Strangford came into the Chamber, I think—1 million people a year are hospitalised as a result of taking prescription medication. We must consider that problem, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the contribution of the hon. Member for Southend West this evening.

David Amess: I welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman, whose maiden speech I was privileged to follow. I am going to mention two or three cases that enforce what he says.
	There is ample evidence to support the fact that animal models do not function in their role. That is a very important matter for the Home Office to consider. In my time here many Ministers have held the relevant responsibility, and of course those advising Ministers are also very important. I do not expect the Minister to give me a firm yea or nay during the debate, but I hope she will write to me about the points that I make.
	Experiments on animals cannot predict the mechanisms of the disease in question, risk factors or potential adverse reactions. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the world’s largest drug regulator—I hate to keep using America as the example, but it seems to have the latest data—92% of potential new drugs fail in human trials. We cannot just dismiss that, because it is huge number, but no publicity is given to it. The drugs fail either because they do not work on, or are not safe for, humans. I will come later to one famous and disastrous incident. After appearing safe and effective in animal tests, those drugs fail completely.
	Communities of senior scientists are very much aware of the dangers of using animals as human indicators. The Safer Medicines Trust, the patient safety charity of senior scientists, including Sir Ian Wilmut, the renowned “father” of Dolly the sheep, has expressed its concern. It is clearly not opposed to animal experimentation per se, but it is concerned for patients and for science in general. Indeed, it has sent open letters to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health stating that the current system for ensuring the safety of medicines before clinical trials is inadequate and results in harm to volunteers and patients.
	These are difficult times, and I know that people are paid to volunteer for trials, but there have been a number of well-documented disastrous consequences. The danger to human beings from the use of animal testing is clear. Even in pre-clinical stages, lives have been lost because the results have misled scientists.
	I wonder how many people realise that penicillin stayed on the shelf for more than a decade because the results in the rabbits on which Fleming tested it led him to believe that it would be ineffective in humans. That was quite the wrong outcome—and we can think of the number of lives that could have been saved all those years ago.
	Lives are threatened in the human clinical stages of trials. In March 2006 six young men took part in a clinical trial at Northwick Park hospital and were nearly killed by a drug that had been tested on monkeys and shown to be safe, even at 500 times the dose that the
	men were given. That is not a trivial matter, and I can remember clearly when it happened. Again, I do not expect the Minister to respond now, but I hope that after she has taken advice she will be able to discuss what happened in that trial.
	Clearly, the results from the monkeys created a false sense of security, yet the risk carries over even when drugs pass to market. Any number of hon. Members will have had constituents lobby them on the painkiller Vioxx, which was eventually withdrawn in 2004 after the biggest drug disaster in history—it killed more than 100,000 people worldwide in its five years on the market. Clinical trials of Vioxx revealed up to a fivefold increase in the risk of a serious reaction such as heart attack, heart failure or stroke, but tests on animals indicated that it was safe, and in some instances that it was protective to the heart, which supported the manufacturer’s decision to market the drug. I am currently dealing with two or three constituents whose loved ones were affected by the drug, and who are trying to get compensation, which, as hon. Members know, is quite a tough battle. One hundred thousand people were affected worldwide.
	Why should animals be indicators of human response? Animals and humans are evolved complex systems and as such should be expected to demonstrate different responses to drugs and disease.

Margot James: A number of drugs registered for humans are effective in animals. Dogs in older age respond very well to Prozac if they are a bit down, and a hypertension drug for humans has proved effective in restoring the vitality of apes in zoos in Britain.

David Amess: I apologise to my hon. Friend in case I was going too far on one side; my argument needs to be balanced.
	Mutations that cause genetic disease in humans are the norm in some animals. Johnson et al found in 2001 that out of 39 anti-cancer drugs tested on xenograft mice, only one mimicked the response in humans. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that that cannot be much to rely on.

Jim Shannon: We need balance in the debate because we are getting one side of the argument but not the other, which is that drugs have been successful in saving lives. I am not taking away for one second from those who have died as a result of inappropriate drugs but, with respect, we need that balance, but we are not getting it.

David Amess: Frankly, one life lost is too many, but we could have a big argument—

Jim Shannon: One life saved is worth it.

David Amess: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a question of balance, but I hope to prove that animal experimentation is completely unnecessary and that we can achieve the same results through different methods.
	There is a variation of response within humans—African Americans are more susceptible to lung cancer than Caucasians—so how can we expect animals to be reliable models?
	Using animals as human indicators is also expensive, for it can keep cures off the market, hence the large cost of modern drugs to consumers and the health service generally. In the words of Robert Weinberg, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the use of pre-clinical tests results in
	“hundreds of millions of dollars…being wasted every year by drug companies using these [animal] models”,
	according to Leaf 2004.
	Other areas of valuable research that might help in understanding the impact of drugs in human beings suffer as a result of animal testing. Despite animal models forming a very minor part of research, they receive a large proportion of funding. Society does not need new research methods; it simply needs to fund the ones that we already have. The important point is that it is possible to test these clinical drugs on humans, so that we can have a better indication of how they will react pre and post-clinical trials.
	Society needs to make a fundamental change from animal-based research to human-based research. If it is humans whom we are trying to help, then scientists must study disease and drug reactions in humans. New technologies, outlined by the Safer Medicines Trust, are based on monitoring human responses to new drugs in a variety of ways. Those range from combinations of tissues in “body-on-a-chip” devices to safe volunteer studies such as micro-dosing, where tiny amounts of a new drug are administered to human volunteers. Scientists, in turn, evaluate what the drug does to the body and what the body does to the drug. Micro-dosing in particular has shown to be highly predictive of results in the clinic. Astoundingly, these tests are already commercially available from a number of UK companies, and offer a much safer and less risky alternative to using animals in clinical trials.
	More than 150 colleagues have signed a motion calling on the Government—it is Christmas and this is not too much to ask—to initiate a small, cheap comparative study to demonstrate whether these new technologies are indeed superior. Sadly, the Government are resisting such a study and insist that human biology-based tests are not better able to predict adverse drug reactions than animal tests, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling argument. Indeed, no one doubts his sincerity. However, if these human-based tests were more effective and cheaper than the animal tests, why are the commercially sensitive companies not taking that route? Why do they persist with animal testing?

David Amess: I am not going to fall out with a tough farmer, because the hon. Gentleman and I have perhaps slightly different views about animals generally. I understand his point, but he will be pleasantly surprised to find that there are many companies that now want to go for this different option. I have taken a lot of advice on it and we just need a little more encouragement from the Home Office and its advisers.
	The attitude at the moment—I do not wish to be unkind to the Home Office—typifies the herd mentality that we are facing; a mentality that aims to promote quantity of opinion and that goes against the pioneering mentality of many breakthrough scientists. The comparison with human biology-based methods has attracted high-level support among scientists. Some 83% of GPs who were surveyed were in favour. Many colleagues have supported the early-day motion and I have received strong support for the Safety of Medicines Bill. All the scientists at the conferences of the Safer Medicines Trust in the House of Lords and the Royal Society were also in favour of my Bill.
	The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection is concerned that Britain is not one of the countries, such as Austria and Belgium, that has urged the European Commission to stand firm on an animal ban for cosmetics without exceptions, as was provisionally agreed by the European Union for 2013. That is not acceptable. Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to trying to encourage a reduction in animal experiments, there has so far been a lack of new initiatives to reverse what the evidence shows is a rising trend. I know that the Minister has received more than 20 proposals from the BUAV for policy changes. I very much hope that she will respond to those 20 points in correspondence.
	Let me conclude with these thoughts. I am talking about negligible expenditure on a comparative study. The amount is quite small relatively, and—I say this to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams)—pharmaceutical companies will willingly fund such a study, which would therefore not impose a cost on the public purse. Such a study could save the billions of pounds that are currently wasted on animal testing by reducing ADRs and boosting pharmaceutical company efficiency. Critically, the sheer scale of ADRs and the fact that they are increasing at twice the rate of prescriptions means that we have an ethical imperative to take action to address what is a serious public health problem, with reported deaths up by 155%, according to The Independent. The key question is this, and I hope that the Minister can answer it—if she cannot, I would appreciate it if she wrote to me: on what basis do the Government refute the evidence that a number of human biology-based tests have predicted ADRs that animal tests failed to predict?
	As we move towards Christmas celebrations, we are drawn to the image of the nativity, with the infant baby Jesus and his parents surrounded by animals. The image and the link could not be clearer. I trust that the Government will reflect on what I have said today and ensure that the proposals in the Safety of Medicines Bill, which I introduced earlier this year through the ten-minute rule procedure, can be enshrined in legislation, as the final gift, after gold, frankincense and myrrh, to both kingdoms represented by the nativity.

Lynne Featherstone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for securing this important debate. He has a long and honourable track record in campaigning on these issues. I am also grateful to others who have contributed to this debate, albeit through interventions.
	Before I deal with the detailed points that my hon. Friend raised, I would like to assure him that I share his concern for the welfare of animals. Indeed, I take the responsibilities in my portfolio in that regard extremely seriously. As the Home Office Minister responsible for the regulation of animal experiments, I am in no doubt that we should license the use of animals only where it is essential and where there is no alternative. That is also Government policy. The Government recognise that the regulation of animal experiments is of significant public interest. In fact, I am sure that Members across the House receive many letters on the issue. We are therefore strongly committed to ensuring the best possible standards of animal welfare and protection for animals that are used for scientific purposes.
	Current legislation provides a high level of protection for animals that are used, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. Work cannot be licensed if it could be carried out without using animals, and the procedures must cause the minimum possible suffering to the smallest number of animals of the lowest sensitivity. I believe that this approach reflects closely what the public want and expect. In addition, the Government have made two specific and important commitments in respect of animal experimentation. The coalition agreement commits us to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research and to end the testing of household products on animals. The commitment to work to reduce the use of animals is being delivered through a science-led programme led by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, and the commitment to end the testing of household products on animals will be implemented using our licensing powers under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Roger Williams: I, too, am greatly concerned about animal welfare and the Minister will know that I have asked a number a questions on the issue. I recently visited Cardiff university to see how the animals kept for scientific experimentation were looked after. The key thing for me was that the relevant science departments were open to inspections at any time—night or day—as a particular inspector could ask to visit at any time. I thought that that provided a real safeguard for animal welfare.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is indeed a frequent writer of questions to me on this issue. One of the key factors in holding standards so high is that the inspectorate can come in, at any time and in any place.
	I shall touch briefly on European directive. The directive strengthens the protection of animals used in scientific procedures and harmonises regulation across the 27 states of the EU. We have very high standards in this country, and the ask is that we maintain them. I cannot give a specific commitment on specific issues until I have received and considered advice following the large response to the consultation exercise.

Margot James: I wonder whether the Minister is absolutely certain on the point about the EU directive. It is widely reported that that directive will remove the responsibility of scientists to review all other possible methods of research prior to testing on animals. Publications, including The Economist, have widely reported that; it may be erroneous, but I wanted to raise it.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend and I can assure her that it is erroneous—and I hope those at The Economist are listening to this debate. We must be factual and ensure that we talk only in realities about this sensitive and important issue.

Nicholas Dakin: I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about the high standards of animal welfare that the UK Government uphold. I take it from what she says that in carrying out the transposition of the EU directive to this country, every effort will be made to maintain our high standards.

Lynne Featherstone: The European directive provides an opportunity to reduce some of the bureaucracy, but when it comes to animal welfare, I am looking closely at anything that might suggest any reduction in standards.

Paul Flynn: Other forms of animal abuse involve small numbers—hundreds or thousands—of animals, but in comparison animal experiments involve them in their millions. Will the Minister tell me how many animals are subjected to experiments now and what she hopes the numbers will be in 2015?

Lynne Featherstone: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on the absolute numbers. I am not sure whether he means every animal in every experiment. What I am looking at in respect of the coalition commitment is whether we can use absolute numbers, how we should count genetically modified animals that receive no other harm, and what impact would be made if this country’s scientific community were to attract more investment. I am looking for something substantive, so that we can know exactly where we are with animal usage in experiments and so that I can deliver the coalition commitment in real terms.
	Let me deal with some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West. He asked about thalidomide. At that time, there was much less animal testing, and thalidomide was tested only on rats. The toxic effects, however, are seen in rabbits. That tragedy led to the current system of testing, which is more robust.

Paul Flynn: If the Minister looks at the research findings, she will find that thalidomide was tested on rabbits, and tested on pregnant rabbits. Only when it was tested again on a particular strain of rabbit did the deformities appear. That is an example of a major failure of animal testing.

Lynne Featherstone: I accept that it was a major failure, as was the testing of Vioxx, notably in the case of the six gentlemen who went for trials. However, I am sure that if I asked my officials to find examples of test results that have been beneficial to mankind and saved many lives, we would see the other side of the coin. I do not think absolute policy should ever be based on specific and exceptional incidents, but we all work constantly to improve the situation.
	Vioxx was licensed for clinical use on the basis of a battery of tests, including non-animal tests, animal tests and clinical trials. The problems were extremely rare, and came to light only when tens of thousands of
	patients were prescribed the medication. However, it is now alleged that the manufacturer, Merck, suppressed some safety-relating findings. I do not know whether that is the case, but if it is, there may be no substance in the belief that animal test data were misleading.
	Let me now deal with the key issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West about the usefulness of animal models as a means of investigating human disease. I have some sympathy with his arguments, to the limited extent that I think we should look critically at the animal models that are used and replace them with new or better models and technologies as and when they are developed. I believe that that is what happens in practice, but if there is complacency, I will do—indeed, I am already doing—my level best to challenge it, and so, I believe, will the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. I have visited laboratories and met representatives of the centre, and I think there is a general consensus that good science results from the best research, whether it involves animal models or human trials. We want good science, because there is no point in coming up with results that do not lead people to want to do their work in this country and obtain the best results.

Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Lynne Featherstone: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is more of an expert than I am.

Paul Flynn: The Minister has been very generous in giving way.
	In the case of Vioxx and Seroxat, both of which have had major adverse side-effects, the problem seems to lie with the regulatory body. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is funded entirely by the pharmaceutical industry. Until we have some independent control, the suspicion will always be there that the one who pays the piper calls the tune for commercial gain.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, but my hon. Friend’s main point seemed to be that the human trials of Vioxx revealed an issue of which no one took any notice.
	I think that my hon. Friend went a bit too far in suggesting—if I heard him aright—that animal models could not, or perhaps could only rarely, be used effectively to find treatments for human diseases. I believe that they have contributed hugely to the development of drugs that have saved lives.

Jim Shannon: What is sought by Members, and by many outside the House, is an assurance that any potential or suggested changes, or improvements, made by the Minister would not affect experimentation on animals to provide new medication that could save lives. It is clear that the medicines that have been perfected through such experimentation have saved not just hundreds of thousands but millions of lives. Can the Minister assure us that it will continue?

Lynne Featherstone: I can assure all Members in all parts of the House that the Government want the development of those medicines to continue, as long as a responsible and careful attitude is adopted to the animals that are used in the quest for better medicines.
	Those who conduct such experiments must adhere to the stringent standards to which I have referred, and search further and harder for alternative technologies. When I visited University College hospital recently, I saw some of the machinery that it is using instead of animals. The advances that have been made, have almost been made or will be made in the near future are amazing, and I am sure that any institution, whether a university, a scientific research establishment or a commercial venture, will want to provide the best conditions for their animals in order to get the best results.

Chris Williamson: On that basis, will the Minister assure us that we can look forward in the next few years to a significant reduction in the use of animals in experimentation, given that alternative methods are now available and more are coming on stream?

Lynne Featherstone: My intention and job is to push as hard and as far as I possibly can. In that, I have to be advised by the scientific community, my advisers, the Animal Procedures Committee and other groups, and I often meet animal rights and welfare groups to ensure that I get the balance right. I cannot give a definitive number, but the intention is to secure a reduction, as promised in the coalition agreement, in the use of animals. The NC3Rs is doing some amazing work and incentivising scientists to be innovative and to come up with good things that people will want to use. I have not brought the brochure with me but it was incredibly impressive on some of the changes that it is delivering. However, we can only go at a pace that can be gone at because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, I would not wish to inhibit genuine advances in what we can do to preserve human life.
	Although there are differences between animals and humans, there are also many similarities, and it is these similarities that scientists seek out when choosing and developing animal models. In most cases, because body systems in other mammals tend to work in similar ways to those in humans, animal tests can predict how the human body will react to a new drug. Otherwise, they would not be used. It would be useless.
	On the safety of medicines, which goes to the heart of this debate, animal studies are considered to be an indispensable component in the assessment of the safety and efficacy of a new medicinal product. Without animal testing, it is highly likely that a large number of potentially dangerous medicinal products would have to be tested in healthy volunteers and patients in clinical trials. That would be quite unacceptable. I shall mention micro-dosing in a moment.
	For a medicinal product to be granted a licence, European and international legislation requires that the toxicity profile of a new drug be defined. In part, that entails the use of animal studies. Nevertheless, I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West that the earlier a potential new drug can be safely tested in humans the better. Companies are pursuing this through methods such as micro-dosing, but that approach does not replace animal tests entirely.
	On the use of new technologies and non-animal tests, I can assure my hon. Friend that, contrary to his fears, the testing of medicines has evolved and that new scientific methods, including those using human tissues, are being used and do have a place in safer medicine testing.
	Today’s approach to drug development has evolved on a rational and scientific basis over more than 30 years and involves an integrated programme of computer-based work, in vitro studies, animal testing and clinical trials. I can report from my own observations on a recent visit to one of our leading universities that modern researchers use a variety of in vitro and computer-based methods alongside animal methods.
	My hon. Friend mentioned adverse drug reactions. This is a far more complex matter than it at first appears. Like other Members, I have personal experience of this, as I am allergic to some common drugs that most people can take without difficulty. I attribute that not to an inherent fault in the drugs, which seem to work perfectly well for millions of other people, but rather to a quirk in the way my body reacts to them. I am allergic to certain antibiotics.
	More generally, I think it is going too far to suggest that the occurrence of adverse drug reactions can be attributed to flaws in safety-testing using animals. It has been estimated that 76% of adverse drug reactions are what are known as type A reactions, in which the medication has a predictable, but exaggerated, effect. Of the remaining, unexpected type B reactions, most are the result of allergies, such as mine, or individual susceptibilities that are difficult to predict in any trial.
	On the attrition rate in the development of new drugs, new drugs are first tested in batteries of computer-based and in vitro tests. Refinements of these tests, including by using human tissues, are making them increasingly predictive. Many compounds are rejected as a result of findings from these tests before they are even tested in animals. It is true that at the next stage, as a result of adverse findings from animal studies a large number of drug candidates never progress to being tested in humans. However, as I have already mentioned, companies hope that this attrition rate will be reduced by using human material.
	Finally, on the value of animal research, it is at present the case that without the judicious use of animal studies we would have no modern drugs, and we should acknowledge that the national health service would be unable to function effectively were it not for the availability of medicines and treatments that have been developed, or validated, through research using animals.
	As I have explained, the Government are committed to minimising animal testing and to encouraging the development of other non-animal methods in place of animal testing where possible. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research brings together stakeholders in academia, industry, Government and animal welfare organisations to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas and the translation of research findings into practice that will benefit both animals and science. We will continue to give the work of the national centre our wholehearted support.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West asked the key question at the end of his speech: on what basis do the Government refute the evidence that a number of human biology tests predicted adverse drug reactions that animal tests failed to predict? The Government do not doubt the value of human biology
	tests in the testing of the safety of medicines, but it is important to recognise that all medicines have the potential for unwanted effects. There is not one in vitro test, or one series of in vitro tests, specifically for adverse drug reactions. It must be recognised that even extensive clinical trials in humans do not always predict the adverse drug reactions seen later when drugs are in widespread use.
	If I have omitted to answer any of my hon. Friend’s questions, I will write to him. I thank him and all Members who have participated. This has been a valuable and thought-provoking debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.